Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKERin the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Tonbridge, in the room of Gerald Wellington Williams, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Great Yarmouth Port and Haven,presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER) (WISBECH PORT AND HARBOUR)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Wisbech Port and Harbour, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 133.]

ADVOCATES' WIDOWS' FUND ORDERCONFIRMATION

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Advocates' Widows' Fund, presented by Mr. J. Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 135.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Slaughterhouses

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to announce the policy of Her Majesty's Government on slaughterhouses in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) on 1st May.

Sir R. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that the delay in reaching any decision about slaughterhouses has been very considerable and is not doing much good to Scottish agriculture? If he has now passed the matter over to the Association of County Councils, would he ask them to buck up and produce their recommendations as quickly as possible?

Mr. Stuart: I hope that there will not be undue delay. I will do my best.

Oats (Price)

Sir R. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the price of the greater part of the oats sold in the north of Scotland was substantially below the average national price; and whether he will introduce a scheme of differential payments for this area, in order to encourage the increased production of this valuable fodder crop.

Mr. J. Stuart: The average price of oats in the North of Scotland in the current cereal year is rather below the national average. This is the normal price relationship and I do not consider that special action on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend would be practicable.

Sir R. Boothby: If my right hon. Friend does not like the idea of regional arrangements, will he do his best generally to try to reduce any gap that may exist between the realised market price and the guaranteed national average price throughout Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: I should not like to commit myself to being able to achieve that desirable objective, but it does, of course, to some extent, depend on the quality of the oats, as my hon. Friend will be aware.

Captain Duncan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the suggestion in the Question is a dangerous one for Scotland, because it might react on the price for beef obtained in Scotland, which is higher than the national average?

Mr. Stuart: I have reason to believe that some of the leaders of the farming world are not satisfied that this would be sound in principle.

Air Raid Shelters

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now instruct local authorities to proceed with the demolition of surface air raid shelters.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that there are still many air raid shelters in the City of Aberdeen which restrict the drying green space and amenities of the occupants of the respective houses;that the practice of his Department not to sanction the removal of such air raid shelters unless they are structurally dangerous, cannot be economically repaired, are dangerous to health and morals or prevent approved development, is too narrow and rigid, and inflicts hardships on many occupants of houses whose drying green space and amenities are restricted;and if he will relax and extend the practice of his Department in such a way as to enable these grievances to be removed.

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to have air raid shelters demolished, especially those in the back courts of tenement property.

Mr. J. Stuart: It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to preserve all sound air raid shelters unless there are compelling grounds for demolition. I am always prepared to consider whether, in particular cases— because of the effects on health or amenity or for other reasons — such grounds exist.

Mr. Hannan: In view of the fact that we are now ten years away from the last

war, and the fact that these shelters would be quite ineffective in a nuclear age, is it not possible for a general order to be given for their complete demolition?

Mr. Stuart: We have to take into account the fact that, in a fall-out area, they might be of some use, but I agree that this is a matter we must keep under consideration. Until better arrangements can be discovered, I do not think that it would be wise to demolish the whole lot.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman coming to recognise the folly of having built air raid shelters for only one purpose? If they had been built so that they could serve a civil purpose as well as a war-time one, they would not be merely eyesores. Will the right hon. Gentleman take this into account in respect of any further shelters to be built, so that they may serve a peace-time use as well as a war-time one?

Mr. Stuart: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State realise that these drying greens mentioned in my Question mean as much to the poor as extensive gardens do to the rich? Is it not a disgraceful thing to continue to deprive them of these amenities, and will the right hon. Gentleman take urgent steps to see that their amenities are restored?

Mr. Stuart: I realise how annoying it is to have these drying greens obstructed in this way, and I should be glad to see the shelters cleared out if possible.

Electricity Boards (Pensions Increases)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will approve, for ex-company pensioners of the electricity supply industry in Scotland, pension increases similar to those now approved for England and Wales.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have informed the Scottish electricity boards that I am prepared to approve the payment of increases in the pensions of ex-company pensioners for whom these boards are responsible. The details of the increases to be paid are at present under consideration.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the ex-company pensioners of the electricity supply industry in Scotland will be grateful to him for that assurance?

Local Elections

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will consult the local authorities in Scotland regarding means of increasing the public interest and participation in local elections.

Mr. J. Stuart: I shall, of course, gladly consider carefully any suggestions that the local authority associations may wish to make to me on this subject, the importance of which I appreciate; but I am doubtful to what extent the remedy is to be found in Government action.

Mr. Thomson: Would the Secretary of State seek the views of local authorities on the question of reverting to November as the date for local elections?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware that there are varying views as to the date, but I will certainly look into that point.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is this situation not possibly due to some extent to the fact that successive Parliaments have deprived local authorities of real power? If my right hon. Friend could give back to local authorities some greater responsibility, would there not be more interest in the election of representatives?

Business Firms (School Fees)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with business undertakings regarding proposals for financial assistance to employees in the education of their children.

Mr. J. Stuart: I have had no such consultations.

Mr. Thomson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Rolls-Royce, one of the biggest undertakings in Scotland, has recently announced a scheme for giving grants to employees arranging private schooling for their children? Does he not think that this is a very important matter which raises very big issues of principle in relation to Scottish education, and will he not seek consultations?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware of the Rolls-Royce company's scheme, but I was not consulted about it and therefore have no particular knowledge of it. Indeed, I am not particularly concerned with it, although I admit its importance.

Glenrothes (Development)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to conclude the discussions with Glenrothes Development Corporation and the Fife County Council concerning future development of the new town.

Mr. J. Stuart: My noble Friend the Minister of State is meeting the development corporation and the county council next month, and I can make no further statement until that meeting has taken place.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the Secretary of State's attention been drawn to the Report of the Church of Scotland," Church and Nation", in which it asks for an investigation and special consideration by the Government of this problem, in view of the possible adverse effects on the proposals for further new towns in Scotland? When will the Government make a much bolder approach to the whole question of the redistribution of industry in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: That raises a wide question. As for the first part of the supplementary question, I can only say that we are dealing with this matter, and I do not think it would be helpful if I commented on it at this stage.

Potato Gathering (School Children's Wages)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of his decision to sanction the continued employment of children for potato gathering, he will now review the wages paid, having regard to the continued rise in the cost of living.

Mr. J. Stuart: The rate of 1s. 3d. per hour recommended to be paid to school children, between 13 and 15 years of age, for potato gathering compares not unfavourably with the statutory rate of 1s. 3½ d. per hour for workers over 15 years and under 16 years. The rate for school children was reviewed in the light of all circumstances by the Departmental Committee on Assistance by Schools in April this year, and it unanimously recommended that the rate should be the same as last year. I have accepted the Committee's recommendation.

Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the cost of living has risen since this rate was agreed a year ago last April? Would the right hon. Gentleman not consider tying these rates of wages to the cost of living, or, alternatively, and better still for the children, tying them to the retail price of potatoes?

Mr. Stuart: If we tied them to the cost of living it would raise very big questions throughout the industrial field. I think the fact that the rate is only a halfpenny less than the rate for children over 15 years of age, and the fact that the farmer concerned has to provide a mid-day meal, make it appear to be a fairly reasonable rate.

Mr. Rankin: Is it not a fact that potato lifting by children was introduced merely as a temporary expedient? Is it now to become a permanent feature of agricultural work in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: That matter has been discussed before now. The hon. Member may or may not be aware that we are doing our best to get on with the development of a machine for the purpose.

Mr. Hubbard: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what he considers to be a mid-day meal? Is he aware that a mid-day meal consists sometimes of a cup of tea and some bread and butter?

Mr. Stuart: I know that mine today was one sandwich. I had not time for more.

Mr. Hubbard: That is a shocking answer.

Hospital, Dunfermline (Waiting List)

Mr. Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the growing lists of patients waiting for admission to the West Fife Hospital, Dunfermline; and what steps are contemplated to reduce especially the waiting period of orthopaedic and general surgery patients.

Mr. J. Stuart: Additional post-operative beds which will be available at another local hospital from July will expedite admissions, and two additional junior surgeons are being appointed. The casualty block due for completion at the end of 1957 will further increase local facilities.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that that Answer is satisfactory as far as it goes, but that there is an increasing need for the provision of orthopaedic beds in West Fife, where last year there were about 2,000 orthopaedic cases? Is he aware that there are only two beds available for such cases in the West Fife hospital, which necessitates patients having to travel to Bridge of Earn Hospital, with all the inconvience and expense involved?

Mr. Stuart: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this matter, and I assure him that the board is doing its best to deal with the position. It has never been envisaged that reliance on other hospitals— for example, that at Bridge of Earn—should cease in connection with orthopaedic cases.

Agriculture (Improvement of Roads)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that local authorities are delaying action along the lines of the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, pending the issue of an explanatory memorandum by his Department; and when this memorandum will be circulated.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that local authorities are expecting guidance in this matter and I hope to issue a circular to them at an early date.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that "at an early date" means fairly soon?

Mr. Stuart: I will amend my Answer to "fairly soon".

Road Signs (Scottish Tourist Board)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that signs are being erected on the trunk roads at Gretna Green and Berwick-on-Tweed bearing on the front "Welcome to Scotland", and on the reverse side "Haste ye back to Scotland", and whether he proposes to erect similar signs at Coldstream and Carter Bar.

Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. These signs, and a similar sign at Prestwick Airport, were put up by the Scottish Tourist Board, which informs me that it does not propose to erect any more at present.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the caption on the reverse side of this sign—" Haste ye back to Scotland"—is well chosen? Would it not be better to have on the reverse side, "Welcome to England", because we do not want to be selfish to the English?

Mr. Stuart: The notices were erected by the Scottish Tourist Board, and I suppose it was concerned more with Scotland.

Mr. T. Fraser: Is the Secretary of State aware that until very recently when one crossed the border going south the notice said "This is England", but that when one crossed the border going north the notice read "Beware of the sheep?"

Major Anstruther-Gray: Is it not high time that we in Scotland followed that good example?

Mr. Ross: Can the Minister tell us whether it was the Scottish Tourist Board which erected outside the Royal Burgh of Ayr a board stating "Home of the Royal Scots Fusiliers" rather than "Home of Robert Burns"?

Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that I should require notice of that Question.

School Milk (Holiday Periods)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes he proposes to introduce affecting distribution of milk and meals to school children during holiday periods.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am considering whether there should be any change in the present arrangements for supplying milk in holiday periods and I hope to reach a decision shortly.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in spite of the fact that the milk has been cut and that the meals have been stopped for holiday periods in England, we feel that there are often special considerations applicable to Scotland, and would he take those special factors into consideration?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Lady that
I shall take those considerations into account. That is certainly my intention.

Steel Strip Mill (Representations)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had for a steel strip mill in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the interest which both sides of Scottish industry have in this matter. I understand that the need for a fourth steel strip mill is still under consideration by the Iron and Steel Board.

Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. Gentleman say for how long this matter is likely to remain at the stage of "under consideration"? When may we expect a decision?

Mr. Stuart: It is not really a matter which I can decide for the Iron and Steel Board. I do not think that I can give a helpful answer to the hon. Lady's question.

Mr. Lawson: Would not the Minister remember that so long as Scotland merely produces steel for the heavier industries, this industry is likely to be based on industries that are old and are rapidly being outmoded? Will he keep in mind that the strip steel mill can keep Scotland right up to date so far as modern industries are concerned?

Mr. Stuart: I personally would welcome it in Scotland.

Quarry Project, Loch Lomond (Appeal)

Mr. Steele: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a public inquiry in connection with the appeal against the Dunbarton County Council's decision regarding the proposed sand and gravel quarry at Mid Ross Farm, Loch Lomond.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am awaiting the necessary information about the case from the county council. When I get it, I shall consider what action is necessary.

Mr. Steele: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of public disquiet over this matter, and will he give it very careful consideration?

Mr. Stuart: Yes.

Administration (Handbook)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many copies of the 1956 edition of "Handbook on Scottish Administration" have been printed and at what cost; and how many copies of the 1950 edition were printed and how many were sold.

Mr. J. Stuart: Four thousand copies of the 1956 edition of the "Handbook on Scottish Administration" have been printed at an estimated cost of £ 171. A total of 5,575 copies were printed of the 1950 edition, and stocks were exhausted some months ago.

Mr. Ross: Will the Secretary of State see to it that copies of this excellent handbook are sent to the Lord Privy Seal and to any other obstreperous Member who questions our rights, at times, to take up time in this Chamber, so that when next we raise the point about the adequacy of the facilities of Scottish Members for asking Questions they will be a little more knowledgeable and, perhaps, a little more sympathetic?

Mr. Stuart: I will examine that point.

Court of Session (Delays)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of complaints by litigants of the prolonged delay before their cases can be heard in the Court of Session; if he will explain the cause of this delay; and what steps he will take to reduce it to a minimum.

Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that cases are being brought to trial more quickly since the appointment of an additional judge, and I am not aware of any recent complaints.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the complaints are not that there are insufficient judges, but that even when a judge is available to hear a case there is no accommodation for him? Would the Minister look into this question of accommodation for the judge?

Mr. Stuart: Perhaps the hon. Lady did not know, but it is the fact that an extra court room for jury trials was brought into use at the beginning of the summer session in 1954.

Television Mast, Blackhill (Planning Permission)

Miss Herbison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had and with whom, before granting permission to the Independent Television Authority to erect a television mast 750 feet high at Blackhill, Lanarkshire.

Mr. J. Stuart: Planning permission under the planning Acts is a matter for the local planning authority, and I am informed that permission for the television mast has been granted by Lanark County Council.

Miss Herbison: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is great criticism of the erection of this television mast, particularly at a time when the Government are curtailing so greatly expenditure in the public building sector? Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that the people in this area would rather have seen this money spent on factory building, since they realise that very soon this mast will be completely derelict? Could not the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, do something to stop the building of this new television mast, which is a short distance from the present one?

Mr. Stuart: As I have said, I think it is a matter for the local planning authority. I will certainly look into the matter, but I do not think that I am concerned.

Mr. Woodburn: As a member of the Cabinet, is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that it is technically possible, I understand, for this programme to be broadcast from the B.B.C. mast already in existence? How does he reconcile a duplication of this kind on behalf of I.T.A. with the need for economy?

Mr. Stuart: I was not asked to reconcile it with economy. I am afraid I do not know enough about the subject to say whether the transmission could be made from the B.B.C. mast.

Poliomyelitis (Vaccination)

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many children of the relevant age group have been registered for anti-polio vaccination; and for what percentage the vaccine will be available.

Mr. J. Stuart: Just under 300,000 in Scotland. I hope that vaccine will be available before the end of June for about 20 per cent. of these; the others will have priority when vaccination is resumed later in the year.

Mr. Ross: Could we have further details of what the right hon. Gentleman means by "later in the year "?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, Sir. Vaccinations will be suspended at the end of June until after the polio season has passed. They will be recommenced in November or December.

Inveresk Gate (Future use)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps are being taken to ensure the continued use of Inveresk Gate as a research institute.

Mr. J. Stuart: The future of Inveresk Gate, including its possible use for research purposes, is still under consideration. I am not at present able to make a statement.

Mr. Willis: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether this building is being offered to other Government Departments or nationalised industries for research purposes? Is he aware that there is a considerable feeling that it would be a great pity of it were no longer used for research purposes?

Mr. Stuart: Yes, I agree with the hon. Getnleman, and it is being offered.

Aberlady Bay Nature Reserve (Shooting Permits)

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to what extent shooting in the Aberlady Bay Nature Reserve is restricted; and how many permits to shoot have been granted.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by East Lothian County Council, which manages this reserve, that for the last shooting season it restricted the number of permits to fifteen— confined to persons resident in the county— allowing only mallard and wigeon to be shot: and that no shooting was allowed after 31st January.

Mr. Willis: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it is rather a contradiction that there should be a specially privileged class created to shoot in what is nominally a conservancy?

Mr. Stuart: The county council presumably take the view that those who live within the county should have the prior claim, and that if one overdid it the birds might be annihilated.

Major Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in what has been a very controversial matter the present settlement has commended itself to most of the people concerned?

Local Government Finance (Review)

Mr. McInnes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if the committee appointed to review all aspects of local government finance, including industrial derating, has yet reported.

Mr. J. Stuart: This review is making good progress, but is not yet complete. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government informed the House on 8th May, the Government hope to begin discussions with the local authority associations by the autumn.

Mr. McInnes: As it is quite possible that the report of this committee will have very far-reaching effects on local government, will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to publish the report of the committee when it has concluded its deliberations?

Mr. Stuart: I must ask the hon. Member to put down another Question on that subject. I do not know, but I think it would have to take place after discussions with the local authority associations.

Mr. McInnes: I do not mind when it takes place, but what I want is a copy of the report to be made available, particularly to Scottish Members.

Mr. Stuart: I will certainly consider that.

Motorists (Drink and Drugs)

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he proposes to take by way of administrative action, consultation or advice, in order to reduce the marked increase of drunk-in-charge cases reported to the police in recent years; and whether, if his powers are insufficient for the purpose, he will promote legislation to enlarge them.

Mr. J. Stuart: Increased penalties for being under the influence of drink or a drug when driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle are proposed in the Road Traffic Bill now before Parliament. In addition, both the Highway Code and the pamphlet "Sense and Safety," which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation issued last January, stress the danger of such practices.

Mr. Hannan: Would the right hon. Gentleman have regard to the latter part of my Question? Is he satisfied, for example, that even at the moment, in view of the alarming figures, he cannot do something either by administrative action or otherwise, as suggested in my Question? In particular, may I refer him to the supplementary question put to him by his hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan) last week?

Mr. Stuart: I think I covered the point because, as I said at the beginning, increased penalties for these offences are at present before Parliament.

Road, Leadburn—Howgate (Footpath)

Mr. Pryde: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a long stretch of the road between Leadburn and Howgate, Midlothian, is without a footpath for pedestrian traffic and children attending Howgate School run great risk; and if he will take steps to correct this anomaly.

Mr. J. Stuart: I understand that Midlothian County Council has plans for widening this road and providing a footpath. It is for the council to decide whether the scheme should be included in the current year's programme.

Mr. Pryde: In view of the increase in drunk-in-charge cases, and as this road is a main road into England, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider bringing pressure to bear on the county council in this matter?

Mr. Stuart: The question of priority is a matter for the county council. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman's Question will receive the attention of the county council.

Building Site, Glasgow

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will revoke the planning permission granted to Littlewood's Mail Order Stores Limited to erect a 14-storey building on ground between Miller Street and Queen Street, Glasgow.

Mr. J. Stuart: The site of the proposed building which has, I understand, been approved by the Corporation of Glasgow as planning authority, is in an area zoned for commercial purposes in the Corporation's approved development plan. Any question of modifying the development plan, or revoking the permission already given, is a matter in the first instance for the corporation.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Secretary of State aware that this firm has abandoned this project because it is alarmed at the effect of the Government's credit squeeze on the spending power of the housewives? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey that view to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? If the site has now been permanently abandoned, what is to happen to the steel which has been allocated to the building?

Mr. Stuart: I am not aware of the details on that point, but I could, no doubt, obtain the necessary information and give it to the hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING, SCOTLAND

Former Service Camps

Mr. Hannan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the rapid deterioration of former Service camps; how many families are still occupying them; and when he expects them to be rehoused.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that conditions in some of the camps are not good, but the number of families has been reduced to 350 as compared with 700 a year ago and 1,200 in 1954. We are exerting constant pressure to secure the rehousing of the families and the closure of all the camps at the earliest possible date.

Tenement Property

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that occupiers of tenement houses


are being threatened with dispossession; and if he will introduce legislation to prohibit the sale of tenement property or to safeguard the purchasers thereof.

Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the case which the hon. Member recently brought to my notice.
As regards the second part of the Question, the Government have explained on several occasions why they are not prepared to introduce legislation to prohibit or control the sale of tenement houses. Prospective purchasers who may not fully appreciate the obligations which they are undertaking would be well advised to seek guidance in the usual way.

Mr. Thomson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the case of threatened eviction of which I have sent him details my constituent certainly took on obligations of which she was apparently ignorant? Is he aware that the solicitors acting for the landlord in that case have refused to give my constituent the legal agreement which formed part of the purchase? Is he aware that the only legal document she has is a two penny notebook provided by this firm of solicitors? Is he aware that the landlord, through his solicitors, has been bringing pressure to bear on both my constituent and myself to try to make us drop this matter? Would the right hon. Gentleman not take some positive steps in his Department to give guidance to tenement dwellers, who are not accustomed to house purchase, with regard to their rights and their obligations?

Mr. Stuart: I am, of course, very sympathetic about the case in respect of which the hon. Gentleman wrote to me. I have the letter here. I will write to him on the points which he has raised, but legislation can deal with matters of this nature only in very general terms, and there are. a very great variety of different circumstances which arise in these cases.

Mr. Steele: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is a Private Member's Bill in my name waiting on the stocks which would greatly assist in this matter? Is he aware that we are prepared to give him all facilities to pass it through the House?

Mr. Stuart: I think that the hon. Member is aware that that has been discussed.

Caithness

Sir D. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will require from the local authorities concerned a report under Section 175 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, in view of the large number of applicants on the waiting lists for houses at Wick and Thurso, and in view of the number of homes unfit for human habitation in the landward areas.

Mr. J. Stuart: The three local authorities concerned have made good housing progress since the war and I have approved their proposals for the next three years as contained in reports recently submitted under Section 1 of the Housing (Repairs and Rents) (Scotland) Act, 1954. I do not consider, therefore, that any further reports are necessary in the meantime.

Sir D. Robertson: Does the Secretary of State realise that there are 500 families on the housing list in the small Burgh of Wick and 260 families on the housing list in the small Burgh of Thurso and that 40 per cent. of the houses in rural Caithness have been condemned as unfit for human habitation? Is not finance the real trouble?

Mr. Stuart: It is also a question of materials and building operatives. Good progress is continuing, however. This is not an area of great density of population, and I know of no reason to cause me to take action not deemed to be necessary elsewhere.

Subsidies (Working Party)

Mr. Forman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his recent meeting with representatives of local authorities on the question of housing subsidies.

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the subject and the outcome of his recent discussions with local authority representatives.

Mr. J. Stuart: I met representatives of the three local authority associations on 20th April, when a Working Party of


officials from the two sides was set up to ascertain all the relevant facts about housing subsidies. I hope to have their Report in June, when I shall resume discussions with the associations.

Mr. Forman: 1 thank the right hon. Gentleman for that Answer, but could he tell us if the purpose of the meeting was to indicate to the local authorities that he proposes to reduce the housing subsidies in Scotland?

Mr. Stuart: I asked the local authorities to consider what should be done for the future, but these discussions are on a confidential basis and I think that it would be better to await the Report of the Working Party.

Mr. Woodburn: Can we take that Answer as an assurance that the Secretary of State has no ulterior motive in getting local authorities and officials to find out what he calls the facts? Has he given any indication that those facts have to be produced in such a way as to justify a reduction in subsidy?

Mr. Stuart: I can only repeat that it will depend on the results of the discussions in progress.

Mr. Ross: Can the Secretary of State give a little more clearly the terms of reference of this committee? Surely all the facts are known.

Mr. Stuart: There are no direct terms of reference. It is a Working Party of officials and representatives of local authorities to discuss what we should best do for the future.

Old People

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities provide special housing accommodation for the aged; and the number of such houses so provided.

Mr. J. Stuart: About 10,000 small houses with one or two rooms have been approved since the war, the majority for old people. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the 156 local authorities concerned.

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his future housing policy for the aged.

Mr. J. Stuart: In April, 1952, the Scottish Housing Advisory Committee gave me a Report containing, among other things, detailed recommendations about the housing of older people which I commended to local authorities. More recently, my Department have collaborated with the Corporation of Edinburgh in designing a demonstration block for old people which should be started soon.
The proportion of houses for this class in approved schemes has trebled during the past four years and is increasing. I am anxious that local authorities and voluntary bodies interested in the welfare of old people should intensify their work in this important field, and I shall do all that I can to ensure that these encouraging developments continue.

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that it was announced on 1st May by the Minister of Housing and Local Government that a special inquiry is to be instituted in England? Are we to take it that in this respect Scotland is ahead of England, or is it that Scotland will have to learn from England and do as England is doing?

Mr. Stuart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are doing our best in Scotland but I have not got the figures to enable me to say whether or not Scotland is ahead of England in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Royal Parks (Deck Chairs)

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Works the reasons for increasing the charges for persons using deck chairs in the Royal Parks by 33⅓per cent.

The Minister of Works (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The charge was raised from 3d. to 4d. when a new agreement was negotiated for the hire of chairs from 1st April this year. This increase was agreed to meet rising costs after close scrutiny of the contractor's accounts.

Mr. Hunter: Is the Minister aware that in the parks under the control of the London County Council the hire charge for a deck-chair is 3d. Will he watch the position in the Royal Parks very carefully? Otherwise if the increase in


charge continues, it will become increasingly difficult for a family even to sit in deck chairs in the Royal Parks?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: In the case of the Royal Parks the contract which we held came to an end on 31st March last. Increased charges were necessary for various reasons. It is not for me to speak for the London County Council, but I think that the council has the same contractor, and its contract has not yet come to an end.

Kensington Palace Orangery

Mr. Nicholson: asked the Minister of Works whether he now has any proposals for the Orangery at Kensington Palace.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I now propose to furnish the Orangery as it ought to be, with statuary and trees as these become available.
The Victoria and Albert Museum is kindly lending a great vase from Hadrian's Villa to be placed in the centre. There is difficulty, however, in finding suitable classical statues and busts for the niches. I should, therefore, be very glad to hear from any owner who would consider lending good copies of classical sculpture, either full-length figures or busts, to embellish this masterpiece of Sir Christopher Wren.

Mr. Nicholson: When my right hon. Friend said that he would be glad to hear from any member, did he mean any member of the public?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I thought I said "any owner".

Building Contracts (Fixed Price Tendering)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Works to make a statement about the possibility of returning to fixed price tendering in Government building contracts.

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I have had discussions about this with representatives of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors and representatives of the building and civil engineering trades operatives: and explained that arising out of the Government's wish to move towards a return to

fixed price tendering it had been decided as an experiment to invite tenders on a fixed price basis for selected projects of values not exceeding £100,000 for which my own Department is responsible.
I feel sure, in view of the general advantages to be gained by all concerned, that I shall have, in this experiment the good will of the industries concerned.

Captain Duncan: While welcoming that as a start may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that it will be very welcome in Scotland, where fixed price tendering for building contracts has been the case for a long time? To what extent will he extend this practice to other Departments in Scotland, and in England as well?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: As regards Government Departments in general, I only wish to say at this stage that if a good start is made I hope that the practice will be extended to other Departments.

Mr. Stokes: Why does the Minister suggest, as I understood his Answer, that there should any longer be any limit to the size of a fixed price tender? Is he aware that in the export market we all have to tender for fixed prices; why should we not have to do so at home?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I hope that in due course we shall get back to that, but naturally I have had to take account of opinion in the industries concerned. This is a start and an experiment; there is no reason why it should not be extended as we go on.

Mr. McInnes: Does the Minister intend also to include in the tenders the appropriate penalty clauses?

Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Yes, Sir; I think that will be the case.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

Research Associations (Development Work)

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, how far it is the policy of the Government to encourage research


associations to undertake development work; and to what extent this is being carried out.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Development work is an important part of the work of research associations which the Government encourage by means of grants paid by the D.S.I.R. These grants supplement the contributions made by industry. The resources devoted to development are decided by the councils of the associations, which are made up predominantly of industrialists but include representatives of the Department. The associations as a whole spend approximately one-quarter of their budgets or over £ 1 million on development.

Mr. Callaghan: In view of the fact that our scientific manpower resources are so scarce, would it not be a good idea to encourage much more development to be done through the research associations for the benefit of industry generally? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there has been a recommendation to this effect. What are the Government going to do to put a little impulsive effort behind it?

Mr. Bevins: Yes, my noble Friend is very well aware of the recommendation made by the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, and several development companies have been formed by research associations. In addition to that, we are starting to try out civil development contracts with scientific research associations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Troops, Germany (Accommodation)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to make available alternative accommodation for British troops and their wives and families in Germany who may be homeless after 6th May as a result of the recent decision of the Bundesrat not to extend requisitioning.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Fitzroy Maclean): None is necessary at this stage. The Federal Government took steps to prevent the evictions which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Fernyhough: Does that mean that the agreement under the Paris Agreement really supersedes the Bundesrat's new order? Will the Minister make it per-

fectly clear to the Germans that if any British troops are affected, they will not remain in Germany but will be brought home?

Mr. Maclean: The position is that the legislative action necessary to fulfil their international obligations is a matter for the Federal Government, but, naturally, Her Majesty's Government are watching the position closely and will do everything to safeguard the interests of the forces there.

Mr. Strachey: Will the Under-Secretary keep this matter very much in mind, because, as the status of our troops in Germany changes, as it is bound to do, nothing is more important than that the comparatively high standard of comfort of the troops and, above all, of their families is maintained in this big command. This has as much influence on recruiting as almost anything else.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of those considerations.

Unnecessary Fatigues and Waste of Time

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress has been made in the declared intention of getting rid of unnecessary fatigues and time wasting activities.

Mr. F. Maclean: Unnecessary scrubbing, burnishing, blancoing and polishing have been forbidden and unit administration has been reviewed to cut out waste of time. My right hon. Friend has received preliminary reports which indicate that considerable progress has been made. There will, however, be no question of any slackness being tolerated in the personal turn-out and smartness of soldiers or in the effectiveness and cleanliness of their arms, equipment or barracks.

Mr. Dodds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the declaration about getting rid of "bull" has been well received in most quarters and should encourage the recruitment of the right type of man for the technical Army of the future? Will he and his right hon. Friend press on with reforms which will get rid of stupid duties without any loss of efficiency?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir; that is what we are doing.

Training, Deerbolt Camp

Mr. Fenner Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will now make a statement on the impersonation of coloured persons engaged in riots which at present forms part of the monthly routine at Deerbolt Camp.

Mr. F. Maclean: My right hon. Friend has been into this Question and is satisfied that the present practice adopted in training should not give offence.

Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he has had consultations with the Secretary of State for the Colonies on this matter, as he promised, and whether he is aware that this practice is in fact giving considerable offence among coloured peoples in Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir, my right hon. Friend has been in touch with the Colonial Secretary. I would add that instructions have been issued that special care should be taken to avoid impersonations which could be taken as representing any particular territory.

Mr. H. Fraser: Would my right hon. Friend consider asking that the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Fenner Brockway) should give his services so as to stir the rioters up to even greater indignation?

Ovenden Camp, Halifax

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for War how much money has been spent in maintenance on the Ovenden Camp, Halifax, since its occupation by the Royal Army Pay Corps.

Mr. F. Maclean: About £ 9,000, including several small alterations and improvements.

Mr. Roberts: In view of the excessive expenditure and the unsatisfactory site of this camp, will the Under-Secretary consider transferring the Royal Army Pay Corps back to its original quarters in Leeds?

Mr. Maclean: No, Sir. I do not accept that the expenditure in question is excessive for a camp of that size, nor do I accept that its present site is unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend is not willing to consider transferring it back to Leeds.

Syrian, Israeli and Egyptian Officers (Training)

Mr. Remnant: asked the Secretary of State for War for what purpose and under what agreements the ten Syrian, Israeli and Egyptian officers are receiving instruction at War Department establishments.

Mr. F. Maclean: This instruction depends on no formal agreement. It has long been our policy to offer courses at military establishments to friendly States with the object of furthering good relations.

Mr. Remnant: Will my hon. Friend explain why he classifies some of these countries as friendly States? Would it not be infinitely better to stop receiving their officers and training them in war until they have changed their attitude towards this country?

Mr. Maclean: If some of these countries are not as friendly as they might be, possibly the effect of these courses will be to make them more friendly.

Accounting and Stocktaking Methods (Inquiry)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for War what progress is being made with the inquiry being conducted by his Department with a view to improving stocktaking methods in the Army and eliminating accounting errors; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. F. Maclean: This inquiry has involved much detailed investigation, and an extensive programme of visits to depots to examine the practical difficulties of storehouse organisation, accounting and stocktaking methods. The conclusions to be drawn from this examination and proposals for improving existing methods are now being worked out.

Mr. Johnson: Is progress really being made with that inquiry? When shall we see some practical results?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir, progress is being made, and I hope that it will be possible to report conclusions shortly, but it would be improper for me to seek to prejudge these conclusions before they are reached by the Working Party.

Troops, Singapore (Political Activities)

Mr. Fernyhough: asked the Secretary of State for War why British soldiers stationed in Singapore have been forbidden when off duty or when talking to Asian civilians to discuss Malayan independence.

Mr. F. Maclean: No such orders have been issued to British soldiers in Singapore. They have, however, been reminded of the limitations imposed by Queen's Regulations on political activities..

Mr. Fernyhough: I have here a cutting from a reliable newspaper—[Horn. MEMBERS "Which is it?"]— the Westminster Press— which indicates that the General Officer Commanding Singapore District —

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has not yet asked a question.

Mr. Fernyhough: I was about to do
so.

Mr. Speaker: It would be more in order if the hon. Member asked his question first. We should then know that he was asking a question and not making a speech.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Nabarro: Write to the Daily Workeror perhaps Tribune.

Mr. Fernyhough: If the brain of the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) were as big as his mouth, he would be a very clever fellow. Is the Under-Secretary aware that this order was issued by the General Officer Commanding Singapore District? Would he not agree that when officers give lectures in which they give these instructions, that is treating grown-up soldiers as though they were simple children, and that instructions of this kind harm recruiting more than anything else does?

Mr. Maclean: I have already indicated that orders on the lines indicated by the hon. Member were not issued by General Tulloch, or anybody else.

Mr. Awbery: Is it not desirable that both soldiers and civilians in Singapore and Malaya should know as much as possible about independence, and that

therefore discussion between civilians and our soldiers should be encouraged?

Mr. Maclean: Nothing is being done to prevent discussion on those lines.

Savings Incentives (Information)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Secretary of State for War what special steps are being taken to bring the new incentives to savings to the notice of officers and men serving in the Army.

Mr. F. Maclean: Special posters and leaflets are being prepared by Her Majesty's Forces Savings Committee. These will be prominently displayed and widely distributed. In addition, all unit savings officers are being provided with full details of the new securities.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Will these posters be displayed and, if so, by what date? Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent increases in Service pay, coupled with the new incentive to saving, offer a special opportunity to an imaginative savings drive in the Services?

Mr. Maclean: Yes, Sir; I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. and gallant Friend an exact date, but the posters are at present being printed.

Mr. Callaghan: Does the Under-Secretary really think that the Government lottery will prove more attractive than Housey-housey?

Lieut.-General Sir Richard Hull

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for War what appointment has recently been assigned to Lieut.-General Sir Richard Hull; and the terms of reference relating to his examination of the possible date of termination of National Service.

Mr. F. Maclean: I gave the terms of reference of the Committee of which General Hull is Chairman in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Leicester, North-;West (Mr. Janner) last Tuesday.

Mr. Stokes: While everybody recognises the great ability of General Hull, may I ask the Under-Secretary whether he will call his attention particularly to the latter part of his terms of reference about the extent to which civilians and outside organisations can be used? If


he makes a good report, at least we may get corresponding action by the other Services which will speedily lead to the abolition of National Service.

Mr. Maclean: I think that we can count on General Hull to read his terms of reference with due care.

Mr. Allaun: Does not the Under-Secretary feel that this morning's news from Russia of a cut of 1,200,000 men strengthens the reasons for entirely abolishing conscription in this country?

Mr. Stokes: I do not think that it makes the slightest difference.

Personal Cases

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Secretary of State for War why he is still retaining in the service in East Africa No. 23081966 Signalman J. Allgood who is suffering from a fractured wrist which has been in plaster for four months and which, in the opinion of the Army surgeons, will never unite completely, but will remain as a permanent disability.

Mr. F. Maclean: This soldier is suffering from a fracture of a small bone in his left wrist. He is being kept in the Army because a recent medical board found him fit for restricted duties in East Africa. His wrist is being kept under observation.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Under-Secretary aware that it is fourteen months since this man broke his wrist, and that it was supposed to have healed? He was sent to Kenya, and for the last five months has had a plaster on his wrist. The man is getting very depressed, according to letters which he is writing home, and does the Under-Secretary not think that he should reconsider this case and allow the man to return home?

Mr. Maclean: My information is that there has been no deterioration in the state of the soldier's wrist, and that useful work is available for him in East Africa.

Mr. Shurmer: Is the Under-Secretary aware that this disability is admitted by Army surgeons to be permanent?

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War why 22963938 Private Churchley, Royal Army Ordnance Corps, was regarded as a deserter, and visited by military policemen at his home at 230,

New John Street, West Birmingham, on 23rd April when he was on sick leave pending discharge; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such an incident.

Mr. F. Maclean: Private Churchley absented himself without leave on 8th March and was notified as an absentee to the Royal Military Police. He returned to his unit voluntarily on 14th March; and the Royal Victoria Hospital, Netley, cancelled its original notification. Unfortunately, because an out-of-date address was used, the cancellation was delayed seven weeks in the post, whereas the original notification had been delayed only a few days. In the eyes of the military police, Private Churchley was, therefore, an absentee when they visited his home on 23rd April.
I am satisfied that existing regulations for dealing with absentees are adequate and that they were properly complied with in this case except that an old address was used. No change of procedure is necessary, but I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my regret for the trouble caused to Mrs. Churchley by this mistake.

Mr. Yates: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that Answer; and I am sure that he will realise that when military police call on a soldier who is on leave pending discharge it gives rise to very serious misgivings, and that some steps ought to be taken to see that that sort of incident should not recur.

Mr. Maclean: Yes, steps are taken, but occasional mistakes of this kind are bound to creep in when an organisation is the size of the Army. I am glad to say that on this occasion very friendly relations seem to have been established between Mrs. Churchley and the military police, so much so that I gather she asked them to come back on a further occasion to have tea.

N.A.A.F.I.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for War to give the names of the Chairman, Deputy Chairman and civilian members of the Board of Management of Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes; and whether he is satisfied that there is adequate public accountability by this organisation in view of the large sums of money which it handles.

Mr. F. Maclean: Mr. W. F. Beale is the Chairman, Mr. C. E. M. Hardie is the Deputy Chairman and the remaining two civilian members of the Board are Mr. C. H. W. Troughton and Mr. Hector Laing.
The Corporation's accounts are audited by a firm of chartered accountants and my right hon. Friend is satisfied with the procedure for general control by the three Services, which has been explained in answer to recent Questions by the hon. Member.

Mr. Hynd: When the Under-Secretary told me recently that the Annual Report of N.A.A.F.I. was available in the Library, was he aware that there was available only a bare summary of accounts? Is it not time that we had more information about N.A.A.F.I., because of the veil of secrecy which seems to surround it?

Mr. Maclean: I will certainly examine the possibility of issuing a fuller report.

Young Soldiers, Cyprus

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for War how many boy soldiers of 16 years of age. and how many others under the age of 18, are serving in or with the Leicestershire Regiment in Cyprus.

Mr. F.Maclean: Three and eight, respectively.

Mr. Janner: Does the hon. Member think that it is about time he took these lads away from Cyprus —[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—particularly in view of the prevailing conditions? Does he not think that youngsters of this age ought not to be in an atmosphere of that description, and will he do something to allay the anxieties of the parents of these boys?

Mr. Maclean: I have nothing to add to the very full statements which have been made upon this subject by both my right hon. Friend and myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS FOR WRITTEN ANSWER

Mr.Albu: asked the Prime Minister what instructions have been given to Departments as to the time to be taken in answering Questions for Written Answer.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
The present instructions to Departments, which are based on the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, are that a Question for Written Answer should be answered as speedily as possible and certainly not later than seven days from the date for which the Answer is requested.

Mr. Albu: Would the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of Departments to the fact that the longer they delay in answering Written Questions, the more likely are they to have Questions put down for Oral Answer?

Mr. Butler: Yes we have already taken steps to notify Departments that that is the case. I hope that the hon. Member's Question and the Answer which I have given today on behalf of the Prime Minister will indicate my right hon. Friend's interest in seeing that these matters are dealt with expeditiously.

Dame Irene Ward: My right hon. Friend will bear in mind, I am sure, that it is possible to put down a starred Question to a Minister on the wrong day and then, of course, get an Answer.

Mr. Butler: I am aware that the hon. Lady is fully cognisant of all the procedures in this House which expedite business and make it more satisfactory.

Mr. K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members try to avoid overloading the Order Paper with both starred and unstarred Questions by indulging in correspondence with Departments, but that replies to letters to Departments very often take a month or longer?

Mr. Butler: It is most important that correspondence between hon. Members and Departments should be answered as expeditiously as possible, and I will certainly bring that to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

George Forrest, Esquire, for Mid-Ulster.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for one hour after Ten o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

LIMITATION OF SCHOOL CLASSES

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Harold Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to limit the size of. School classes.s
The purpose of the Bill which I seek to introduce is to limit the size of school classes in Britain by January, 1958, so that thereafter no class of school children in Britain shall consist of more than 35 children. This is not a permissive measure this provision is to be obligatory. The figure 35 is not Utopian, but I have selected it because, as the present Leader of the House will appreciate, it is five above the permitted number in a secondary modern school class and five below the permitted number in a primary school class.
The Select Committee on Estimates in its Eighth Report in the Session 1952–53 said that we have schools that are unsuitable for children and that they suffered from gross overcrowding. That Report said:
At every point we were confronted by overcrowding, lack of schools, heavy transport costs, shortage of teachers and often rapidly deteriorating and even dangerous school buildings
While the permitted maximum number of children in a class is 40 in a primary school class and 30 in a secondary school class, figures today show that nearly 47 per cent. of our school classes exceed those numbers. Both sides of the House are in agreement, I am sure, about the need to reduce those figures. I am sure that the Leader of the House, who was one of the architects of the Education Act, 1944, would himself like to see these overcrowded classes reduced in size. I sincerely believe that if this nation made a real effort we could, by January, 1958, reduce these classes.
In my own constituency, there are school classes of 60 and 57 and 70 each, taught by one teacher. They are found in schools in areas of new building. These classes are in makeshift classrooms, hired halls, chapel and church halls, and miners' welfare institutes, and other types of building are being pressed into service.
I wish I could have the attention of some hon. Members who are making

rather a noise. This is an important subject. If they do not want to listen, I should be grateful if they would be good enough to leave the Chamber. There is an hon. Gentleman opposite who has been making interruptions all the afternoon and he is continuing to do so while I am speaking.

Mr. Dudley Williams: rose—

Mr. Davies: No, I shall not give way.
The same Select Committee reported that the time lag between the completion of houses and school buildings was a subject of major concern. I appeal to right hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider seriously the object of the Bill I seek to introduce, because I believe that we could between us do a good job for our school children by 1958. The Select Committee's Report said:
The building of schools lags seriously behind the building of houses in most places and this aggravates overcrowding, compels local authorities to hire temporary school accommodation and commits them to exceptional heavy expenditure on transport, beyond that allowed by statute.
A report from the Ministry of Education, in 1952, commented on the growing school population. I shall not weary the House with a mass of statistics, many of which are already well known, but I must submit a few essential figures. The school population in 1947 was 4.8 million, by 1951 it was up to 5.6 million, and by 1954 it was 6.3 million. It is estimated that the number will rise in 1958 to 6.6 million and that then it will gradually drop to about 5.9 million. We shall have past the peak after 1958, so, by a concerted effort by hon. Members of this House, we could do a real job of work on behalf of our school children by that year.
I am encouraged to think we could reduce the size of the classes by that time by an Answer given by the Minister of Education to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) the other day, an Answer which delighted me. The right hon Gentleman said:
In January, 1955, the numbers of pupils per full-time teacher in Staffordshire were 33.4 for juniors and 22–9 for seniors. The corresponding figures for England and Wales as a whole were 31.5 and 21.0."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 3rd May, 1956; Vol. 552, c. 571.]
Consequently, hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will say that, mathematically, it is within the


bounds of possibility, though I know that mathematics and reality are not always the same thing. There are physical obstacles.
I deprecate the high figures in Staffordshire, but the point is made that we have a sufficient number of teachers if we could administratively do the job. I do not want to speak politically. We should not make the child the shuttlecock of political parties, but I must say that we had not recovered, by the time war broke out, from the cut which was imposed in 1931. I see that one of my hon. Friends is laughing, but he knows nothing about the case. I repeat that we had not recovered from the 1931 school programme and, in addition, 5,000 schools were damaged by enemy action during the war. According to the Education Report of 1952, 47 per cent. of our classes were too large.
TheManchester Guardianreported on 18th July, 1953, that
… the Select Committee were so concerned about conditions in schools that they made proposals to secure improvements. The Minister demolishes those proposals, but offers nothing new in their place. There is nothing in the document which suggests that anything will be done to deal with the fundamental facts exposed by the Select Committee.
I am asking the House to do something to deal with those fundamental facts.
An hon. Member who was speaking for teachers from the benches opposite pointed out the other day that in the past few years the size of classes had increased by 33 per cent. in the primary schools, but we were spending only 2s. 5d. per head of the population per week on primary schools and 11s. 8d. per week on armaments. I believe that the raw materials and the finance could be found by some slight cut in the armaments programme to provide for this primary need. A total of 71,000 out of 128,000 classes in Britain are at present too large.
The tragedy is illustrated by an Answer given in the House on 31st October, 1955. to the effect that whereas 28.9 per cent. of classes were over-sized in 1954, nearly 30 per cent. were over-sized by 1955. The House must do something about this if Britain is to maintain her moral lead and to keep her place in the scientific world. We can never do that by not giving the child milk today and stuffing it with cream ten years' hence. If we are to meet the problem of scientific education

the House must seriously face this issue today.
By means of this Bill I am trying to make a real effort to face the difficulties. I beg the Minister of Education to realise that all the talk of extravagance in education is completely untrue. We were spending £ 100 million on education in 1938. According to the Minister's figures, we are now spending £ 3152 million. The school population has gone up by nearly 3 million, yet we are spending barely three times as much as we were spending in 1938, since when there has been a considerable drop in the value of the £.
The hon. and gallant Member for Poole (Captain Pilkington) recently asked the Minister of Education what, in terms of December, 1952, was the cost of a primary place. The Minister said that it was £ 262 in 1949 and £ 129 in 1954. The hon. and gallant Member then asked the Minister to ensure that that very satisfactory economy would be mentioned by my hon. and right hon. Friends in their constituencies. I am mentioning it now. If there has been a cut of that nature, who and what have suffered? The building programme has suffered, the school equipment has suffered and the children who are the backbone of the country have suffered. The House should not tolerate that situation.
I appeal to the House to do something immediately. Teacher recruitment can help meet the situation. On 26th April, the Minister showed in an Answer that teacher recruiting was improving. The Minister is pleased at that, as we all are, but he said that he could not expand the training colleges. I hope that he will be able to do so. One of my hon. Friends asked the other day how many of the schools in the school building programme had been postponed. We were told that 330 out of 941 schools had not been started up to last March. The House should be ashamed of that record, because teachers and children have to suffer in consequence.
I beg the House to urge upon the Minister to press forward with this school building programme. According to a circular which the Minister has sent out, the right hon. Gentleman is expecting something of a miracle from the education authorities in assuming that at the present cost per place new buildings can


be erected. If the House permits me to introduce my Bill I hope that all of us, on both sides, can make a job of providing the necessary school accommodation.
Choleric critics of our youth today talk about juvenile delinquency. Some want more beatings and some more Beatitudes. Neither beating nor prayer can solve the problem of slum schools and overcrowded schools. We opened our proceedings in the House today with a prayer. I believe that a child has a divine right to his curiosity and sense of wonder. How can that child satisfy his curiosity and sense of wonder in the kind of schools which we are tolerating in Britain today? My prayer is, "Grant us today the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, the courage to change those we can, and the wisdom to know the difference." We can change the present situation in our schools and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will help us to do so.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Angus Maude: In rising to oppose the application for leave to introduce the Bill I do not, of course, doubt for a moment the excellence of the aim which the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies) has in mind. It is quite clear that he wants the best system of education and smaller classes, and so do we all. The point is whether the means which he seeks to persuade the House to adopt is the right one or the one most likely to secure his end.
This is clearly not an issue between the two parties, and I think that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have good precedents on their side if they will join with me and some of my hon. Friends in opposing this application. The hon. Member for Leek said that he would not worry the House with statistics, and neither will I. Everyone knows that statistics are extraordinarily difficult to interpret and make relevant to this proposal, since 35 is not a maximum number for any class of school. The figures are 30 and 40. The average number of children now in primary schools is just about 35 per class, which the hon. Member for Leek proposes, while the average-size class in secondary schools is well below 35.
It is, of course, true that there is still a large number of classes which are over the permitted maximum and over the 35 in all classes of schools, particularly where there are new housing estates. That is certainly true. But, of course, the reason why there are large numbers of over-size classes is not because of a slack Minister, a slack House of Commons or a large number of slack local education authorities who are letting people get away with dereliction of duty, but simply because it has proved physically impossible to cope with the enormous number of children resulting from the increased birthrates of the 1940s.
This is not a problem which exists only in this country. I have recently come back from two months spent in looking at schools in the United States, where they have a far worse problem. There, they have the money and the resources to produce an enormous number of school buildings, but it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to find the number of teachers required. This is the problem that we have to face.
If we grant the hon. Member leave to introduce his Bill, and the Bill ultimately goes through, can we, in fact, provide, without undesirable secondary effects, the number of extra teachers and buildings required to make these maxima effective? We have to realise that in face of the enormous number of competing demands, particularly for young women teachers nowadays, if we greatly increase the number of teachers we are likely to have an immediate shortage of nurses, medical auxiliaries and staff in all the other professions on which the Welfare State now depends.
We have to realise that we are now getting more teachers than we have ever had before, and that more teachers are going into the teacher training colleges than ever before. That is a tremendous achievement. Can we get more? I believe that in time we may be able to get more, but I am fairly certain that the effect on other professions would be very considerable now if we tried to increase the number very much.
There are, of course, other implications. There is the building question, about which I want to say a word or two in a minute. At this stage, I would like to see whether the machinery which the hon. Gentleman wants to provide for


ensuring that there shall be no oversize classes is the best. Here I would like to say that his idea is not a new one. It is one which was canvassed actively on both sides of the House during the Committee stage of the Education Act, 1944. This will be found in HANSARD of 15th February, 1944, when an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) to write into the Bill a maximum figure for the size of classes in different kinds of schools.
There was a long and careful debate on this subject, and in the course of it the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was then Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education, replying on behalf of the Coalition Government, said quite clearly that in his view writing the permitted size of classes into regulations which could be altered according to change in circumstances by the Minister was a far better method than writing a maximum firmly into the Bill, not merely because they could be more readily adjusted to change in circumstances but, as the right hon. Gentleman for South Shields said, "If you put it into a Statute you are only too likely to find that a slack or economically minded education authority will say, 'Oh, we are allowed by Statute to have 35 children in each class and we can, therefore, allow those classes which have already less than 35 to increase up to that figure '." There is psychologically, of course, something in that.
In conclusion, I want to impress upon the House two things. First, has the House, which I have no doubt feels considerable sympathy with the hon. Member, really considered what would be the implication on the building programme and on the provision of teachers by trying to do this? We have to realise that at present there is still a very large number of small village schools in this country, single class schools, schools with one or two classes, with one or two teachers, some of which go over the figure of 40 or over the figure of 35. What would happen if we tried rigidly to impose on the schools that maxima?
We would probably find that there were three or four children over the

maxima in one particular year or one generation of children. In three years' time it might be five under the maxima and in another three years it might again be five over. If we expect that village school to build another classroom or provide another teacher, or if we have to provide transport for those children to go away from that village to a school in a local town just because we have three or five children over the permitted maxima, the position becomes impossible. We hope and believe that the way things are going at the moment the size of classes in primary schools will continually decline over the next few years.
We shall have a very difficult time in secondary schools, but the one thing that we must not do is to divert building resources and teacher resources away from the secondary schools for the next ten years by unnecessarily tinkering with and making more rigid the structure of the primary schools, where the position will not get too bad. The hon. Member may say, "If we put a maximum in a Statute that will provide a target at which local education authorities will have to aim." The powers are there already. Under Grant Regulation No. 10, the Minister has power by Order to see that those local authorities which go over the maximum are called to account.
If the hon. Member and his hon. Friend think that the Minister is not being tough enough with the local education authorities—I myself think that he is—I suggest that the best thing they can do is to ask him Questions or raise the matter on the Adjournment rather than to take up the time of the House with legislation that cannot be effective.

Mr. Harold Davies: A disgusting suggestion.

Mr. Maude: I would ask hon. Members not only on this side of the House but hon. and right hon. Members opposite, who may have to administer this very difficult piece of legislation, unless they are quite confident that they will never be again in office, to join with us in opposing the Bill.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 12:—>

The House divided: Ayes 154, Noes 181.

Division No. 182.]
AYES
[3.58 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.


Albu, A. H.
Hannan, W.
Parkin, B. T.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, S. S.
Herbison, Miss M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hobson, C. R.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Holmes, Horace
Pryde, D. J.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Holt, A. F.
Rankin, John


Benson, G.
Houghton, Douglas
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, F.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Reeves, J.


Blackburn, F.
Hubbard, T. F.
Reid, William



Boardman, H.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hunter, A. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Irving, S. (Dartford)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brockway, A. F.
Janner, B.
Short, E. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Silverman, Juilus (Aston)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Snow, J. W.


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. G.
Summerskill, R. Hon. E.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McInnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Delargy, H. J.
Mahon, Simon
Timmons, J.


Dodds, N. N.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Viant, S. P.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mellish, R. J.
Wade, D. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Messer, Sir F.
Warbey, W. N.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, T. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mitchison, G. R.
West, D. G.


Fernyhough, E.
Monslow, W.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H.J.
Mort, D. L.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Gibson, C. W.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Orbach, M.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Grey, C. F.
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Owen, W. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Zilliacus, K.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Grimond, J.
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Shurman and Mr. Harold Davies.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Carr, Robert
Godber, J. B.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Channon, H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Gower, H. R.


Arbuthnot, John
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Graham, Sir Fergus


Armstrong, C. W.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Ashton, H.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Baldwin, A. E.
Crouch, R. F.
Green, A.


Balniel, Lord
Deedes, W. F.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Barlow, Sir John
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Barter, John
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. MCA.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Drayson, G. B.
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Duthie, W. S.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Black, C. W.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfd)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Erroll, F. J.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Braine, B. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Forrest, George
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Fort, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Bryan, P.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Freeth, D. K.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Butler,Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Campbell, Sir David
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)







Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Neave, Alrey
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholls, Harmar
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hyde, Montgomery
Oakshott, H. D.
Stuart, R. Hon. James (Moray)


Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Studholme, H, G.


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Teeling, W.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Keegan, D.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr.R.(Croydon, S.)


Kerr, H. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, G. N.


Lagden, G. W.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Leavey, J. A.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Leburn, W. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Touche, Sir Gordon


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Turner, H. F. L.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Profumo, J. D.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Raikes, Sir Victor
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ramsden, J. E.
Vickers, Miss J. H.


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rawlinson, Peter
Vosper, D. F.


Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.
Redmayne, M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Remnant, Hon. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


McAdden, S. J.
Renton, D. L. M.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Whitelaw, W.S.I.(Penrith &amp; Border)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Roper, Sir Harold
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Russell, R. S.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Maddan, Martin
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Sharples, R. C.
Wood, Hon. R.


Mathew, R.
Shepherd, William
Yates, William (The Wrekin)



Mawby, R. L.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)



Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L, C.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Moore, Sir Thomas
Spearman, A. C. M.
Mr. Maude and


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Speir, R. M.
Mr. Beresford Craddock.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.8 p.m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I suppose, Sir that in accordance with the custom of the House I should, as I have a young family, disclose an interest, though I must add that I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will in due course deprive me of a substantial part of that interest.
The Bill, like old Gaul, is really in three parts. First, it implements the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widow's Benefit, which I laid before this House in the early part of February and on which I made a statement on 27th February. Secondly, it makes a number of important changes in the structure and scope of the family allowances scheme. Thirdly, it implements the promise contained in the Budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to increase the rate of family allowance by 2s. in respect of the third and subsequent children.
The close connection which exists between the family allowance scheme and the national insurance system provides, in a way, the underlying structural unity of the Bill. As hon. Members will be aware, it is the fact that a child as defined for family allowance purposes is also for that reason, and by that means, defined as a child for national insurance purposes. Consequently, by widening the definition of "child" for the purpose of the Family Allowance Acts, we automatically widen it also for national insurance purposes. The purpose of this Bill on those two matters is to carry out what I may describe as the theme of providing, in particular, benefits for widows, especially those with children, and additional benefits also for the family. That is the underlying theme and the centre of unity of the Bill.
The Bill itself is not as long as the amount of material with which it deals might suggest. If I may be allowed to say so, the parliamentary draftsmen have

done extremely good work in compressing—or, if I may borrow a phrase from the Department of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, pressurising —

Mr. J. T. Price: Shame.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: — the contents of the Bill into a comparatively limited space. If the hon. Gentleman is not careful, I shall talk about de-retirement.
To take the first part of the Bill, that which relates to widows, the provisions of the Measure implement, and in full, the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee. Perhaps in that context I might be allowed to say a word about the Committee itself. It seemed to me on another Measure that there was perhaps some misunderstanding of its position and function, and as we are at the moment proposing to implement a number of its proposals it might be helpful to the House if I said a word about it.
It is, of course, advisory. The responsibility for acting or not acting on its advice remains with the House and with the Government. It is, on the other hand, a body which contains among its members very distinguished representatives on both sides of industry as well as extremely experienced independent people, it has a procedure which enables it to deal with evidence either orally or in writing, and it is a body with great experience of the highly complex problems of national insurance.
Therefore, while I would not for one moment suggest that it is right to accept its advice without thought or criticism, none the less I am certain that serious students of these matters will weigh seriously any recommendations coming from that body. In respect of this Report it has certainly seemed to us right to ask Parliament to implement the recommendations in full.
The Report, and, therefore, the provisions contained in the Bill, emphasise and carry perhaps a little further the conception of widowhood which was originally brought out in the Beveridge Report and the Coalition White Paper. Adopting what was then a new idea, the line was taken that widowhood as such ought not to attract a permanent pension, but that what resources were available should be concentrated on three categories of


widow— the widow with children, the sick widow and the older widow— and that those who fell into none of those three categories should after a period of 13 weeks, during which they would draw the widows' benefit provided under the Act which the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) carried through the House, go back into the battle of life on the same basis as the spinsters.
Thus, the idea was that the resources available from the Fund were in greater measure and in more adequate degree to be concentrated on the three categories to whom I have referred. In its Report the Committee endorses that attitude and in some of its proposals it carries the doctrine a little further, as appears from the terms of the Bill. It certainly seems to me that the underlying ideas of the treatment of widowhood to which I have referred are sound and in many ways far more wholesome than the older idea.
The most important of the Committee's recommendations was that a "substantial increase"— that was the expression which it used— should be made in the allowance in respect of widows' children. At present, the rate is 11s. 6d. for the first child and 3s. 6d. for the second and each subsequent child, though in their case there is also the family allowance. What the Bill proposes, after consideration of the advice from the Committee, is an increase of 5s. in respect of each child. In other words, it is proposed to raise the weekly payment in respect of the first child from I Is. 6d. to 16s. 6d. and in respect of other children from 3s. 6d. to 8s. 6d., to which is added the 8s. family allowance for the second child and, under the other provisions of the Bill to which I made a passing reference a moment ago, 10s. in respect of third and subsequent children. What the widow will get will be 16s. 6d. for the first and second children and 18s. 6d. for other children.
The effect of this, to give an example, is a widow with three children under the existing provisions gets, if we include family allowance, 74s. 6d. per week, and the proposals will raise the amount to 91s. 6d. a week. That is an increase of 5s. for each child and 2s. for the third child by way of the increased rate of family allowance. It is also proposed

to make a similar increase of 5s. in respect of widows' children under the industrial injuries scheme.
I suggest that this is a substantial increase within the spirit and the thought of the Committee's recommendation, and I think it is right that we should make such an increase. The Committee found that of all National Insurance beneflciaries widows with children were the section which had in largest degree to resort to National Assistance. Indeed, it found in the case of widows with four or more children that 75 per cent. of them were resorting to National Assistance, which compares very adversely indeed with any other category of National Insurance beneficiary.
This increase should help in considerable degree the widows who are left with children, and they will certainly mark, if the House adopts them, a remarkable increase when compared with 1948. For the first children widows will be receiving more than double what they received in 1948 and for second and other children, family allowances included, about three times what they received then.
The Committee made another important recommendation which affects other categories of widows and, in particular, affects not only the widow who is colloquially known as the "10s. widow" but the other, and perhaps less frequently referred to, category of widow who under the National Insurance scheme receives no pension at all. I referred a moment ago to the underlying idea of widowhood in the Report, and, in particular, to the idea that the young fit childless widow ought to be helped and encouraged to restore her ordinary position in the workaday world.
It has been found that one of her difficulties in doing so at the end of either her widows' benefit or her widowed mothers' allowance has been that her ordinary contribution position under National Insurance has been insufficient to provide her with the sickness and unemployment benefit which she may need at any time. The Committee has therefore suggested, and we have accepted its advice, that the right way to deal with the difficulty is to provide that when one of these widows comes out from benefit, either from the widows' allowance or the widowed mothers' allowance, she should be given what, if I am not again offending


the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), is colloquially known as a "flying start" in National Insurance. That is to say, she should be put in the position of eligibility on the basis of the same contributions as originally established her widow's insurance position, in relation to both sickness and unemployment benefit.
As the House will recall, sickness benefit can be drawn as long as the person concerned is sick, but unemployment benefit depends on the length of contribution and, therefore, the exact amount of unemployment benefit which the widow will be able to draw will depend on the length of her marriage. The idea is to provide her with a position in which she is eligible, immediately on coming into the situation in which she has to earn her own living, to be fully equipped against the dangers of sickness and unemployment.
That is comparatively easy to state, but it is extraordinarily complex to do. What we propose in the Bill is slightly to enlarge the regulation-making power under the 1946 Act to enable us to effect this by regulations, and if the House accepts the Clause I should propose to lay regulations, which will be subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, as soon as I can after the Bill becomes law. That provision will affect about 40,000 of the ladies in the 10s. a week category as well as a number of those who are not in possession of any pension at all.
There is one other proposal which will also help widows in that category, and that is the proposal contained in the Bill to reduce the qualifying period of marriage for widowhood benefits from ten years to three years. The effect of that, as soon as the Bill is law, will be to bring into pension at the full National Insurance rates about 5,000 to 6,000 widows at present receiving either 10s. a week or no pension at all; and in future years it will mean that about 1,000 in each year who would not otherwise receive a pension will, in fact, receive it.
There is one proposal in the Measure which, contrary to the others to which I have referred, operates in the direction of restricting rather than expanding benefits, and perhaps I should say a word in particular about that. At present, if a widow is over 50 when her husband
dies she receives a widow's pension until it becomes a retirement pension; in other words, she receives pension for life. If she is over 40, under the existing law, when she ceases to draw widowed mother's allowance—that is, when her children cease to be children for whom benefit is paid under the scheme—she will also draw pension for life.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly will remember that that was not a proposal of the Beveridge scheme, but it was a proposal which he himself introduced between the publication of the White Paper and the introduction of his Bill. If he will allow me to say so, he introduced it for the extremely sensible purpose of assisting the widow to keep a house together while she had young or adolescent children. The right hon. Gentleman gave that reason in the course of the debate.
We are proposing to achieve the same end as that which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind, but by a different method— by the proposal in the Bill to pay the widowed mother's own share of widowed mother's allowance to her while she has any child under 18, even though that child, being neither at school nor an apprentice, is not itself entitled to family allowance or the children's portion of widowed mother's allowance. We feel that that would help with the problem which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind.
Experience has shown that this is a better method of dealing with it. I do not say this in any criticism of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal; he launched this great and new scheme against the background that we had to see how it would work. In practice, the provision for the payment of permanent pension after 40 if at that age the widowed mother came out of widowed mother's allowance, has produced anomalies and unfairnesses.
I do not want to weary the House with examples, but I have one example which illustrates the point which I am seeking to make. Let us take the case of a woman aged 45 when her husband dies— a woman who has a daughter aged 14That woman would be entitled to pension for life. If, however, her husband had lived for another four years, until she was 49 and her child was 18, she would not be entitled to pension for life.
That kind of anomaly in a scheme of this sort has given rise to a feeling of unfairness, and we have come to the conclusion that it is better to deal with the objective which the right hon. Gentleman had in mind by securing that all widowed mothers shall get their own share of widowed mother's allowance until the youngest child is 18, rather than by the provision to which I have referred and which the right hon. Gentleman introduced.

Dr. Horace King: Is not the right hon. Gentleman creating another anomaly? We are now to have widowed mothers who move into this class at the age of 40. All the arguments which the right hon. Gentleman has employed about the barrier between the ages of 49 and 50 also apply between the ages of 39 and 40. He is taking out of the pension field a group of women who, having borne children and, as widowed mothers, brought them up, will be faced, at the age of 40, with the task of trying to earn their living, with no pension under the Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think the hon. Gentleman can have understood what I was trying to say, and I am sure that that is my fault rather than his. These matters are very complicated. We can discuss this matter further, but I think we are eliminating the kind of anomalies of which I gave an example.

Mr. Thomas Steele: The right hon. Gentleman has said, in effect, that of the two widows he described, one would have a pension and the other would not; but under the provisions of the Bill, neither would have a pension.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Neither would have a permanent pension, but both would have the widowed mother's share of widowed mother's allowance until the child was 18. Under the present law they would not have that. This is a subject on which it will be interesting to hear the views of the House, but it seems to us, as it seemed to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, after hearing evidence, that this was a more practical and fair way of dealing with the anomalies and difficulties which have arisen in the operation of the present law. It seems to us much less anomalous and much fairer.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: Is it not the case that the proposal is to increase the age of the child from 16 to 18—two years—but to increase the age of the mother from 40 to 50—ten years?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I will come to the question of the ages of 16 and 18 when I come to the part of the Bill dealing with family allowances. When the hon. Member has had time to consider what I have said, he may desire to reflect further on the matter. This is a matter to which not only the Government but also the National Insurance Advisory Committee have devoted a good deal of thought, and they have come to the conclusion which I have outlined. I know that the hon. Member will want to consider the point seriously before forming his own final views.
It is not, of course, proposed to bring the solution to which I have referred into force so as to affect any existing widow, or until the new provisions with respect to what I call the flying start, which require the making of regulations and the affirmative Resolution procedure, have come into force. This will, of course, take care of any difficulty which it seems might otherwise arise.
I will not refer in detail to the other smaller provisions in the Committee's Report, but I will refer, in passing, if I may, to the removal of a small difficulty that has arisen in connection with marriages which by the law of the place where they were contracted could have been polygamous but were in fact monogamous.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: Which are they?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If my hon. Friend wants an explanation, the man, by law, could have married a number of women but, in fact, has married only one. I think that is a fairly accurate summary, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) will bear me out.
The National Insurance Commissioner has decided, in those cases, that although there has been what seemed an ordinary monogamous marriage in practice, if, by law, it could have been polygamous, it should not be treated as a marriage either for widowed mother allowance or for any other National Insurance purpose. There have been a few cases affecting Commonwealth citizens, and we have decided to


put the matter right and to provide that if the marriage is, in fact, monogamous, then it shall be treated as a marriage for all purposes of widowhood benefit, retirement pension and maternity grant of the National Insurance scheme. That is one of the small matters discovered after the operation of the scheme for a number of years, but it affects some of our fellow citizens from the Commonwealth overseas, and, for that reason, we are particularly glad to put it right.
The other part of the Bill relates to family allowances. Clause 1 (1) implements the promise of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget to increase by 2s. the rate of family allowance for the third child and subsequent children. That was discussed in the Budget debate and I do not think it is incumbent upon me to argue it at any length. It will have this effect it will be paid in respect of 1,850,000 children who are in or part of 1,150,000 families—families which themselves contain no fewer than 4 million children. It will, therefore, be a payment— it will cost about £ 10 million in a full year which will help the larger families.
The food surveys published by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food confirm the fact, and there is little doubt, as is evidenced by common observation of hon. Members, that particularly large families are a section of society which need a little assistance at this time. I suppose it is the common experience of hon. Members that of all groups of our society the large family is worse off in many ways than a single person or a small family. So it seemed right to us to make this adjustment of family allowances operate directly to help the larger family.
The justification needs only this additional argument, that it is, of course, the fact that the high standards which now operate in the care and upbringing of children are in a large degree responsible for the rising standard of physique and health in the children of this country. The maintenance of this standard imposes heavy sacrifices and burdens on the parents, and I think it is in the broad national interest that, even in these times when additional expenditure is difficult to justify some additional payment should be given to help in that direction.
The original Family Allowances Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Jowitt, or Sir William Jowitt as he then was, was introduced by a quotation from "The Vicar of Wakefield"
who was ever of opinion that the honest man who married and brought up a large family did more service than he who continued single and only talked of population?
Sir William Jowitt referred, as I should like to refer, to that as a "robust and a vigorous sentiment." It is in that spirit that this provision is put forward.
In the same spirit, there is a provision which implements an undertaking given by my right hon. and hon. Friends to raise the age of entitlement to Family Allowance for school children and apprentices. Under the present law family allowance is paid until a child's fifteenth birthday, or until 31st July following his or her sixteenth birthday if he or she is at school or apprenticed. So far as school children and apprentices are concerned, it is proposed to raise that age to the eighteenth birthday.
I gave some consideration to the question whether we should adopt again the terminal date of 31st July following the child's birthday and I came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for a number of reasons. It would be anomalous for many to go on paying family allowance after the eighteenth birthday, since people at eighteen become adults for normal National Insurance purposes. Equally, they become liable to call-up for National Service and there might be some unfairness at paying in respect of those who were deferred when those who were called up would not receive it.
It also avoids the difficulty of gambling on the turn of the dates, depending on the child's birthday. If you manage to arrange things so well as to be born just after 31st July, under the present scheme you get about a year's more Family Allowance than if you timed your entry into this world to arrive on 31st July.

Mr. James Griffiths: It is the same as the Premium Bonds.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is perhaps introducing another element of chance, but I must not provoke the right hon. Gentleman.
Also, the date 31st July is quite irrelevant to apprentices, and for these reasons


it seems a sensible and clean-cut idea to terminate this allowance on the eighteenth birthday. These modest concessions, costing a little over £2 million, will help, in particular, those people who keep their children at school for a longer period than they are compelled to by law, or apprentice them in a skilled trade, and as such will attract the House as being in accordance with a sensible social policy.
The Bill also raises the age of entitlement to family allowance to 16 in the case of a wholly incapacitated child. The reason why that is raised only to 16 is because at 16 such a child becomes entitled to National Assistance in its own right. But under the existing provisions there has been a gap between the age of 15 when such a child, as he cannot continue at school, has ceased to be entitled to family allowance, and the time he became entitled to the National Assistance in his own right
Some time ago my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) introduced a Private Member's Bill in which was contained the substance of what is now Clause 5 of this Bill. The provision in that Bill, which did not reach the Statute Book, and in this Clause, are designed to deal with children committed to a local authority for care and whom it is considered expeditious and wise to send back to their families on a temporary basis. There was some doubt about what was the legal authority for doing that and the Bill puts it beyond doubt. It also provides that when such a child is returned to its family the allowances shall be payable in respect of the child. 1 should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree for the thought which he gave to the proposals contained in his Bill, and which we have now decided to incorparate in this Measure.
Clause 4 extends the power we have to make reciprocal arrangements for family allowances purposes with other countries. Under present conditions we can make reciprocal arrangements regarding family allowance only with the Commonwealth. This extends the power to enable reciprocal arrangements to be made on the same basis as for National Insurance purposes. We are entering into a reciprocal agreement with Belgium

for National Insurance purposes under which Belgium is making a concession to us in respect of her family allowances scheme. If the House gives us this power we shall wish to make reciprocal arrangements with Belgium in connection with our family allowances.
The cost of this Bill can be looked at in this way. It falls both on the Exchequer and on the National Insurance Fund. So far as the Exchequer is concerned the 2s. for the third and subsequent child will cost £10 million in a full year and the extending of family allowance ages will cost £2 million in a full year. There is, therefore, a total cost of £ 12 million to the Exchequer. The cost to the National Insurance Fund, on which the biggest item is the additional payment for widows' children, will be £ 34 million in a full year. That is a substantial sum and whenever National Insurance benefits are increased it is necessary to consider the effect on the contribution rates. This particular expenditure will tend to decline after about ten years, and, therefore, the permanent cost of this National Insurance charge provided by the Bill does not seem to us sufficient to warrant changes in the contribution rates at present. It will have to be taken into account in the light of other changes which may have to be considered when the National Advisory Committee completes its Report.

Mr. J. T. Price: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman referred to the large percentage of widows—I think 74 per cent.—who have to apply for National Assistance. In giving this estimate, should not there be a saving on National Assistance?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has saved much time, because there is to be. I am giving the House the full facts. There will also be a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund, because I explained that we are extending this in respect of industrial injuries by £160,000 a year to begin with and rising to £250,000. There, again, we have had to consider the effect on the industrial injuries contribution particularly in view of the Report by the Government Actuary of the First Quinquennial Actuarial Review of the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
We came to the conclusion that this change would not of itself justify an increase in rates, although, clearly, that will have to be taken into account when the time comes to consider them. On the other side of the ledger—and I come now to gratify the hon. Member for Westhoughton—there will be a saving to National Assistance of about Elf million from the saving of the Bill as a whole. That necessarily is not a precise calculation because the matter will turn on the precise circumstances of a number of families. The hon. Member was quite right in saying that in considering the aspects of the Bill we want to know what reliefs it will bring here.

Mr. Steele: I appreciate that there will be savings to the Assistance Board, but surely there will be some saving in reducing the age from 50 to 40 for widowed mothers. Does the figure of £3½ million take into account the savings which will be effected there?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, it does and that is why, as the hon. Member will, no doubt, recall, I said that, after ten years the amount of £3½million will tend to decline. It will tend to decline because of the compensating adjustment of the Fund. That is why it will tend to fall and why we feel that this can be looked at, not as a permanent increased charge of this order on the Fund, but a permanent charge perhaps on the nation.

Dr. King: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Can he say how much will be saved on the change from age 40 to 50 for widows? That will be a matter we shall want to raise in Committee, and if we knew how much it would cost that would help both the Government and us in our discussions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would rather not hazard a figure without further thought. There will be very little saving in the beginning because, as I have indicated, this will not affect existing widows as they have a settled expectation of this benefit. It will tend to grow after ten years.

Mr. K. Thompson: My right hon. Friend has now made clear to me what was not clear before, that the existing rights of a widow drawing a pension will not be interfered with. When my right

hon. Friend spoke earlier on this subject he said that they would not be interfered with as they exist now or until the "flying start" has become effective. I take it that the two exceptions are quite separate and that existing rights will be maintained?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My hon. Friend is quite right. He, or probably I, must have telescoped two separate points. I am coming to a convenient part of my speech to deal with that.
The Bill provides a number of appointed days for different provisions. We did not propose to appoint a day for the 40–50 change until the provisions for a "flying start" could be brought into effect. The bringing into effect of these provisions will depend on the making of a regulation under the Bill when it becomes an Act and an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As my hon. Friend said, the other exception of existing widows will not be affected as it is a quite separate provision.
We have a number of powers to make appointed days. It would obviously be wrong to start speculating now on when those days will be. That must be when Parliament decides that the Bill shall become law. I very much hope, however, that we shall be able to put into force the extension of family allowances of school children up to 18 at the beginning of August. The reason is that a number of children will be coming out under the existing law on 31st July, following their sixteenth birthday, and it would puzzle people concerned if we took them out of family allowances and then put them back a few months later. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said that it is hoped to bring into effect the increased family allowances for the third and subsequent children on 1st October. The 2nd October is the nearest pay day to the beginning of that month.
This Bill reflects in two ways certain ideas of social policy which we wish, despite the economic difficulties of the time, to seek to achieve. The first is the concentration of the resources available in some of the directions where they seem to be most needed. The other is to give some further support to the family as the only sound foundation of a sound society and the care for the young, which must be the major pre-occupation of any com-


munity which has a faith in its future. Because it seems to us that this is a serious and sincere attempt to serve those efforts, I commend the Bill to the House.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: The Minister was commendably brief in the agreeable speech he made. I am afraid that, unlike him, I cannot claim a direct personal pecuniary interest in the matter any more. I might have had one had the Bill been introduced a year or two earlier. My personal interest, nonetheless, still remains very strong. As a parent, I have had some experience of receiving family allowance, and, as a son, I have had some experience of living in the household of a widow.
As the right hon. Gentleman told us, the Bill contains two main provisions, the increase of certain family allowances, which was foreshadowed in the Budget Statement, and the implementation of the recommendations of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widow's Benefit. Of course, we welcome both those improvements in the conditions of our people, as far as they go. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I especially welcome the provision in regard to widows because, when the right hon. Gentleman first announced his intention to implement those recommendations of the Committee, he told us that he would not be able to do it this Session. When he made that announcement 1 intervened and said
…16s. 6d. is still a pitifully small sum on which to bring up, feed and clothe a growing child? If that is the most he can do, will he not at least do it at once?
I must say that I am glad that in subsequent representations which I made to the Lord Privy Seal I found that apparently the Government had changed their mind
On 27th February the Minister said:
It will not be possible to proceed with this legislation this Session."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th February, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 837–8.]
However, when I questioned the Lord Privy Seal, whom I am glad to see here to-day, on 8th March— when he announced certain provisions concerning elections in Northern Ireland— I asked:
If the right hon. Gentleman can find time for this legislation, could he not also find time for the Bill to implement improvements

in widows' pensions recently announced, on which I promised him that the Opposition would give him an easy passage?
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
I must, of course, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman in respect of that very important matter to which he draws attention, say that it is an obligatory duty which we have to perform."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th March. 1956; Vol. 549. c. 2329.]
I was pleased, and I am sure that many widows who will benefit from these provisions were also pleased.
As a result, we have this Bill before us and, if I have played any part in expediting its introduction, I am all the more grateful that it has been brought in. I am glad indeed to hear again this afternoon from the Minister that he is going to do his best, if the Bill is given a Second Reading— as I am sure it will be, and its Third Reading— — to use the powers given him under the Bill to make the necessary Regulations as soon as possible.
I have said already that we would give the Bill an easy passage and today we certainly intend to fulfil that promise. We shall not attempt to oppose its Second Reading. We shall criticise it in parts no doubt during our proceedings this afternoon. We look forward to opportunities on the Committee stage to examine it even more carefully. If we have undertaken to give the Bill an easy passage, that does not mean—and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it ought not to mean—that we are pledging ourselves to see it rushed through Committee. We want to have opportunities in Committee to examine very carefully all the various proposals, and, if possible, to persuade the Government to improve some of them.
Asking, as we do, for careful deliberation during the Committee stage— and we on our part undertake that there will be no delaying tactics— we want to see the provisions for the children of this country improved, and improved to the maximum degree possible. We shall not stand in the way of any improvements, even though they do not go as far as we should like, but we want the opportunity to explain how we think this Bill will affect the mothers, the widows and the children of this country during the course of that Committee stage.
Turning now to the family allowances provisions of the Bill which are contained in Clause 1, these were announced by the


Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement. They were part of the Budget provisions for the general economy of the country. As I think the Minister indicated this afternoon, they were in line with the policy of the Tory Party. As I understand that policy, it has been to get rid as quickly as possible of all subsidies and to give some compensation to those who are to be most hit by the policy of raising the price of food, which the abolition of subsidies entails.
The Minister today passed rather rapidly over that aspect of these proposals, almost as rapidly as the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech passed over the elimination of the bread subsidy, which he mentioned almost in passing and which some hon. Members indeed failed to notice in the general course of his speech. We are faced this afternoon with the consequences of the abolition of the bread subsidy and with the consequences of the Government's measures in regard to the milk subsidy, both of which have raised the price of bread and milk, and this has happened on top of and in addition to the steady rise in food prices which has already taken place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) reminded the House in the Budget debate that in 1955 alone, whereas the rise in the general index of prices was 6 per cent., the rise in food prices was no less than 8 per cent. As a consequence of the Budget measures, there is likely to be a still further rise, so that the extra 2s. per week family allowance which is proposed this afternoon is some compensation for the rises in food prices and, in particular, for the rise in the prices of bread and milk.
We have had many arguments about prices and their effect on different classes of the community, but nobody can deny that children eat bread and milk. Nobody can deny that they must be, and ought to be, among the principal consumers of bread and milk. These rises in prices of bread and milk affect them more than anyone else in the community. We have to ask ourselves whether the proposal to increase family allowances by 2s. for the third and subsequent children in a family is sufficient compensation for the rise in bread and milk prices.
I ask the Government this question: Does not the second child eat bread and milk too? The right hon. Gentleman said that these burdens fall more heavily on the large family than on the small one. It is perfectly true, but they fall upon all families in which there are young children. We should have preferred to see a proposal from the Government to compensate all families by way of a rise in family allowances not by going so far as to provide a family allowance in respect of the first child, but by continuing the established policy, on which I think both parties in the House are agreed, to pay family allowances for the second and subsequent children in a family. We should have preferred to see — and we think the Government ought to have introduced it— an all-round increase in family allowances.
Admitting the special needs of the large family—and, of course, one must admit that the large family is most severely hit by the various difficulties which confront working class families at present—none the less, we feel that this particular addition is inadequate, and we would welcome —and we will see whether we cannot at later stages of the Bill persuade the Minister to be bold and take the whole step—a provision in this Bill to pay family allowances to the second as well as to the third and subsequent children.
I need not spend any time at all on the change provided in the Bill in the definition of what constitutes a child. We owe that to that Advisory Committee which put this definition forward as one of the recommendations in its Report on widow's benefit. I should like to say that the Minister's tribute this afternoon to the Advisory Committee is well deserved and, once again, we should like to join with the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the Advisory Committee for the very considerable amount of time which it devoted to studying this and other problems.
We hope that this change in the definition of what constitutes a child, that is, the raising of the age to 18, will provide some incentive to the children themselves to stay on at school or become apprentices; in other words, to accept and engage in education, instead of trying to rush out into paid work at the first opportunity, and that it will also reduce the incentive of parents to do the same thing—to hurry


their children out because of the poverty of the family as a whole. We very much hope that in consequence we shall have children staying on in school for longer periods, and more boys, and even girls if possible, entering apprenticeships in industry, instead of taking the very often comparatively well-paid jobs that lead nowhere.
I turn now to Clause 2, which contains the implementation of the Advisory Committee's recommendations about widows. These recommendations by the Committee were very wise, very penetrating and very ingenious, and when we read them we were really delighted. The solution which they have found for many of the problems and anomolies which have been created by the working of the National Insurance Acts up-to-date are greatly to be commended. They were ingenious and sensible. We particularly welcome the change in the qualifying period of marriage, and the introduction of eligibility for unemployment and sickness benefits, which the Committee recommended and which are provided for in this Bill
We have only two qualifications in mind in extending our congratulations to the Committee on this Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West(Mr. Steele), if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye. Mr. Speaker. will want to expand on this matter to which he has devoted a great deal of study in the past. Therefore, I want to put it no stronger than to say that, despite the improvement in the right of widows to receive sickness and unemployment benefit, we are not sure whether it was really necessary to do away with the former category of "incapable of self-support." However, I pass that by because, as I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West knows a great deal more about the working of this provision than I do, and he may wish to say something later.
Similarly, we are not quite happy about Clause 2 (5) which deals with the substitution of the age of 50 for 40 as the qualifying age for pension of a widowed mother whose children have grown up and for whom she no longer receives an allowance. It is true that this is a recommendation of the Advisory Committee. It is equally true that the

Committee justified it at great length in paragraphs 43 and 44 of the Report. The Minister this afternoon followed very much the lines of the argument which the Committee adduced in those paragraphs.
One must admit that there is some force in the arguments which the Committee puts forward and which the right hon. Gentleman brought forward this afternoon. But did the Committee or does the right hon. Gentleman sufficiently take into account, in recommending his proposal, the difficulty which a widowed mother over the age of 40 encounters if she is trying to enter the labour market for the first time? We hope that she will be enabled by the family allowances and widow's benefit, and so on, to look after her family at home while they are young. We hope that she will not be forced to start earning her living while the family is still with her. At the end of that time, when the family is grown up, she will be 40 or more years of age. Between that time and her attaining the age of 50, she has to find a place in the labour market. It strikes one as an extremely difficult thing to have to do. even in times of full employment.
The Minister said this afternoon that the provision for the payment of permanent pension after 40 has produced anomalies. That is true. Examples were given by the Committee and were repeated this afternoon by the Minister. But when the Minister was asked a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen (Dr. King), he was not quite easy in answering it. My hon. Friend suggested that though some anomalies may be removed by these provisions, new ones may be created. I was glad that the Minister at this point indicated a willingness to consider representations. I feel sure that hon. Friends of mine who have wide experience of the working of these provisions will want to make those representations this afternoon and later in Committee. We are glad to know that the Minister himself feels that a fuller examination is needed and that he will listen carefully to anything that is said.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I did not wish to indicate that I thought a fuller examination was needed. I said that the Advisory Committee and the Government had given careful thought to this matter.


What I did say— and it was hardly necessary to say it — was that I will, of course, listen to any point which any hon. Gentleman desires to raise.

Mr. Marquand: I did not wish to misrepresent the Minister. I am quite satisfied with the undertaking that he has just given.
May I turn to the case of the widowed mother with children still in her care. As I have already said in this debate and in discussion on another Bill, it is highly desirable, in my view, that such a mother should be able to stay at home and look after the family, at least while any of the children are below school age. All recent studies of child delinquency, child psychology and so on show that this is extremely important. What happens during the years of infancy may form the whole character of a person later on. The constant presence in the home of a parent— and, of course, particularly of the mother— is vital to that sense of security and confidence which has to be built up at those tender years. Even later than school age, in my own experience, it seems that it is vitally important that the children should know that the mother is there when they come home.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: indicated assent.

Mr. Marquand: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) nodding approval. I know he gives a great deal of thought to these matters. From study in one's own family and other families, one feels that perhaps during the last twenty years or so, that important aspect of family life may have been under-estimated in the revolt from the old-fashioned strict family life of the Victorian period. We are now coming round again to realise its importance. Therefore, I hope that everything we can do will be done to assist those mothers who see their duty in that way and who wish to stay at home and look after the infants and later the schoolchildren
The situation of such widows has been anything but satisfactory. The Minister referred to this, and I should like to emphasise it again by quoting from the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee on the Question of Widow's Benefit. Paragraph 38 says:
About 30 per cent. of women receiving widowed mother's allowance are receiving

supplementary national assistance. This percentage is higher than for any other class of National Insurance beneficiary. Further, this is an average figure. While the percentage for the widow with one child is much the same as for beneficiaries generally, the percentage for the larger families is very much greater, rising to about 75 per cent. for families of four children or more.
That is a deplorable state of affairs. We have to ask ourselves whether the increases and the improvements proposed in this Bill will be sufficient to take these children out of assistance. Will it be sufficient to give them the chance to live a proper family life? The numbers of persons on assistance, as the Minister told me not long ago in answer to a Question, have risen by 30,000 since the last increase in National Assistance scales. Today there are 1,600,000 persons drawing National Assistance, to whom, I suppose, we may add 900,000 in respect of their dependants. I do not know the exact figure. Perhaps nobody knows. Probably one in twenty of our population at the present time, if not actually drawing in the sense of having a book, is dependant upon National Assistance to some degree. We cannot be happy about that situation.
Retirement pensioners are not within the scope of the Bill, and about them I will say no more, but we cannot be happy about the position as it affects widows. At the time of the last Report of the National Assistance Board, 93,000 widows were drawing National Assistance. It is too large a number altogether. In fact, I would say that it is 93,000 too large.
The estimate presented to us this afternoon and contained in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill shows that the saving to the National Assistance Board if these proposals are implemented will be £1,500,000. Good— fine— but how many people will be taken off National Assistance? The Minister has said that he could not be quite precise about the figure of £ 1,500,000— that it was in round figures. I wish that he had been able to hazard a guess as to the number of widows and their families who could have been taken off National Assistance in the time mentioned in the Memorandum. Possibly there may be time for him to look at that later on and to consult with the National Assistance Board
We really want to know what the position is. We want to give these children


a real home of their own, and a real chance as they get older. How many of these children of widows drawing National Assistance ever really have the chance, about which we are so fond of boasting, of getting to the grammar school, and from the grammar school to the university with State scholarships. They may be able enough to qualify, but the pressure to go out to work to help the widowed mother is so great that children with some sense of responsibility are all to often led to miss those opportunities. They are a depressed class in our community and we want to be sure what will happen to them.
What is the measure of what such families and what such children ought to receive? I am very grateful—and I am sure that all who are interested in this problem are very grateful—for the remarkable article which appeared inThe Timeson 14th May setting out figures giving us an idea of what various classes benefiting from various sorts of social benefits in fact receive. If we look at National Assistance we see that in respect of the child under five years only 13s. is paid, and for the child between five and 10 the amount is 15s. 6d. By the time the child is 11, 18s. is paid by the National Assistance Board and between 16 and 17 the Board—which has the duty of finding out what is necessary to maintain a child—pays 23s. 6d.
Those figures are substantially higher than those proposed in this Bill for the widow's children. If we look at war pensions, we find that the amount payable to the widow for her children is even higher than that. Here, I do not want to be misunderstood. I hope that I cannot be. I hope that nobody in this House who knows anything about war pensions would think for a second that I would want to suggest any kind of reduction or lowering of the standard of war pensions or of the pensions and allowances paid to war widows. I hope that any record I have is sufficiently good to make it quite clear that I would never suggest that.
I am bound to say, however, that the widowed mother with three children who is drawing National Insurance will receive 92s. 6d. a week under these provisions; the war widow similarly placed will receive 127s. 6d. I think that 127s. 6d. is a much more satisfactory figure. It

seems to me, then, that despite the provisions proposed in the Bill—and they are improvements—the National Insurance widow without other resources will still have to go to the National Assistance Board at least for her rent
I do not regard that as satisfactory. I have received a letter from the Secretary of the National Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations, which says:
…there is an urgent case for asking that the benefits paid in respect of widows' children should represent the full cost of maintaining the children, plus a contribution to the family overheads '
The letter goes on to say
The national Joint Committee last month discussed very fully the Minister's statement of 27th February. Their view was that an increase of 5s. for each child was inadequate, and they want to urge very strongly that the benefit should be at least 20s. or 21s.
In view of what is regarded as a reasonable sum to pay to war widows, and in view of what is regarded by the National Assistance Board as the minimum to be paid, they are not far off the mark. So I want to say—as I gave warning on another Bill that we might have to do—that during the Committee stage we really feel that it will be our bounden duty to seek for some improvement of these allowances.
May I say just one thing more? We discussed recently the earnings rule for pensioners of various kinds. This afternoon we are discussing the position of widows. The more we go into it the more do we find anomalies, complexities and variations of payment which are very difficult for us to understand—they are still more difficult for the pensioner himself or herself to understand. The Parliamentary Secretary admitted that fact the other day and said that she would do her best to get the new provision concerning the earnings rule widely publicised and explained in popular terms. If I am not mistaken, we have yet to receive the Report of the Advisory Committee on Contribution Conditions. These conditions, again, may be complicated and difficult to understand.
What we are doing is to tackle this problem piecemeal. We on this side feel that in view of all the difficulties that have been thrown up by these various separate examinations, what is now needed is a thoroughly comprehensive review of the whole of the system of


National Insurance. We are sorry that it was not done when opportunity occurred for the statutory review at the end of a five-year period. We are sorry that that review was hurried through because of the imminence of the General Election. We shall certainly do our best — and we hope that the Minister will do his best— to get a more thorough and satisfactory comprehensive review of all these conditions before very long.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. John Tilney: As I shall take up the time of the House for only a few minutes, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesborough, East (Mr. Marquand) will forgive me if I do not comment on his many comparatively minor points. The words he used in effect welcomed the Bill, which will, I believe, find an echo up and down the country.
I thank my right hon. Friend for his courteous reference to the Bill I had the honour to introduce in the last Parliament, the third Clause of which he has been good enough to embody in Clause 5 of this Bill. There were two other Clauses in that Bill which was withdrawn, and I should like to express my appreciation to the many voluntary bodies, especially on Merseyside, which helped me with that Measure. I believe the House would also like to express its thanks to the many voluntary workers who, even in these days of the Welfare State, work unobtrusively and unsubsidised behind the scenes helping many a child and many a home.
The second Clause of my Bill would have enabled the court, on the making of a judicial separation order involving the custody of children, to direct to whom any allowance should be payable. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the problem arising when a parent goes away with a family allowances book, leaving the children with the other parent, can be tackled much more easily administratively than by a Bill of this kind.
There was one other Clause which raised a matter of which I think the House would like to take note. Although we all agree on the principle of family allowances in binding a family together, we have to accept the fact that there are a number of families, either where parents are mentally backward or where some-

thing goes wrong between them, where some of the children are handed over to a local authority or a voluntary home. In such cases the social worker often finds great difficulty in getting the money which is handed over to the parent by way of family allowances sent to the voluntary home to pay for the children.
I know it is said that this is a matter of principle and that it is up to the parent to buy a postal order, to get pen, paper and envelopes, and to send the money every week, but our experience in the Army brings home to us the great difficulty of getting some families to put pen to paper or to make a businesslike effort in this direction.
I should like to quote to the House two cases which have been brought to my notice. In one, there were six children in the family and the third child, a boy of ten, was in a voluntary home. The mother was finding it very hard to manage on the money allowed to her by her husband and she was in arrears in her payments to the voluntary home. Many visits were made by the voluntary workers, but the mother continued to say that she found it very difficult to send the money as the temptation of having it in her own hands was too strong.
In another case, where there were arrears of payment, the social workers who had been trying to help the family, which had fallen on very evil days, had to give evidence against the family because it had not paid its proper contribution for the upkeep of one of the children in a voluntary home.
The first Clause of my Bill endeavoured to make it possible for such a parent to sign a document, before a justice of the peace or some other authorised person, allowing a voluntary body or a local authority for a short period of time, say, 12 weeks, to draw the family allowance for those particular children. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that as Form FAM.36 enables a parent to delegate authority to collect family allowance while the legal parent is physically unable to do so, and while we allow children to be sent away from the family into a home, to some extent the principle of keeping the family together has already been abrogated.
If my right hon. Friend would look once again into the problem and see


whether by administrative means something can be done to remove the temptation from many of these parents, not only the parents but also many of the social workers would indeed be grateful to him

5.24 p. m

Dr. Horace King: I am tempted to follow the details—important details—which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has raised in his speech, but I will say only that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would be unwilling that family allowances should be paid to parents who proved by their conduct that they were not fit to have their children and whose children have had to come under the protection of the State. I congratulate the hon. Member on succeeding in getting quite a useful little Clause into this good little Bill.

Mr. Steele: It is not a minor Clause.

Dr. King: It is a major Clause; I am corrected by my hon. Friend. He is right. It is quite an important improvement.
I hope that I misunderstood the hon. Member for Wavertee when, in paying tribute to those who do voluntary work, the hon. Member said that "even under the Welfare State" much voluntary work is going on. I am sure that he will agree that once the political battle over establishing some new part of the Welfare State has receded into the past, both political parties in the country and both sides of the House realise that the Welfare State does not dry up the wells of human charity. In the State hospitals, in the State institutions for mental defectives—in one of which I recently saw the parents of the children have made the gift of an extra building, by voluntary effort—in the State schools through parents' associations and in the voluntary work being done by hundreds of thousands of people in the National Health Service and in the care of the old folk, such as by the provision of travelling meals, we have seen that the Welfare State does not mean the abolition of human good will and charity but often means a great opportunity for its expansion and development. I congratulate the hon. Member on the Clause which he has managed to get into the Bill, and it will please all who give voluntary service to child welfare.
I believe that the great National Insurance framework which we built up was, on the whole, a magnificent achievement of the first Labour Government after the war. I watched it with admiration from outside and I have learned to admire it and its creators even more deeply since I came into the House. It had, however, one serious defect, in that it failed to match up to the problems of widows. It is true that one could not do everything or foresee everything in shaping the insurance scheme, but I am afraid that when the House was considering it in those early post-war days, and even somewhat in this Bill, it was not fully alive to the hardships which are endured by widows, and especially by widowed mothers.
I welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the capable and kindly way in which the Minister has introduced it. One is always afraid, when a Minister goes from the Treasury to a great welfare Ministry like the Ministry of Pensions, no matter how many intermediate stages he passes through —

Mr. Douglas Houghton: The right hon. Gentleman did not go direct; he paid an intermediate call.

Dr. King: I said that he had passed through an intermediate stage. It may be that that was a mellowing process. Nevertheless, one is a little afraid lest the voice of the Treasury should suddenly emerge in the Ministry of Pensions. The present Minister follows a line of very distinguished predecessors at this Ministry since the war, from both sides of the House. He is in charge of one of the most loved Ministries which has ever been set up in any country of the world, manned by people who are doing a fine job in National Assistance, in care for disabled soldiers and old-age pensioners and in all the great social work which makes people outside the House and in it very proud of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. We are sure that he will add his own distinguished contribution to that line of Labour and Conservative predecessors.
I hope that as we discuss the Bill in Committee the Minister will be as courteous as he always is on the Floor of the House and that we shall have an opportunity seriously and in detail to


examine the question of adequate assistance for widows. Let us be quite clear that although this is a good Bill— I know it is the custom for the Opposition to say that it does not go far enough— my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) is right in saying that much of the virtue and benefit of it is minimised by the result of Government policy in other ways. The increased benefits for children, increased family allowance benefits, and increased widows' benefits are largely gobbled up by the rise in the cost of living, and far from there being a real advance in the relative position of the widowed mother, as one would imagine from the Minister's introduction and from the wording of the Bill, the advance is a minor one, because it has to be set against the fall in the value of money.
I assure the Minister that I do not make that point from the traditional grudging point of view of an Opposition speaker. It would be ungracious not to welcome this Bill. I particularly welcome the extension of the family allowance to children who go to school after the age of 15 up to the age of 18, and the extension of the children's allowance to apprentices of that age. This is a matter which, as the Minister will remember, we debated on the Finance Bill some two years ago, and I am more than happy to see that particular provision in the Bill.
There is one tiny section of the Bill which gives me even greater pleasure. We are here recognising in this House, really for the first time, the particularly anomalous position of one group of parents, namely, those who have mentally defective children who are sufficiently backward not even to be able to go to special schools for defective children. As I mentioned during the Finance Bill debate some two or three years ago, while financial concessions are made for the bright child who goes on with his education, while concessions are made for the backward child who goes to a school for the mentally defective and continues his education, this narrow group of parents whose children are so helpless that they must be cared for at home has received no such help. The family allowance was dropped when such children attained the age of 15, and then, for a year, the parents had to keep them until, at the age of 16,

they became nominally adults and were covered by National Insurance. I want again to pay tribute to the mothers of England who look after such helpless children in their homes, doing a 24-hours-a-day job. I thank the Minister most sincerely for reaching out, and. by means of this Bill, giving a helping hand to some of the noblest parents that Britain has.
It is worth remembering that, by and large, this Bill caters for decent fathers and mothers, for decent widows and for decent widowers, just as it caters for decent children. The Press might occasionally mention the mass of decent fathers, mothers and widows of Britain instead of giving the idea that all mothers waste their family allowances and all our youth consists of Teddy boys. By and large, we have a great and wonderful family life in this country, and if this Bill helps to develop and stimulate it, good work will be done.
There is one provision in the Bill, which some may regard as a detail, but which I none the less welcome as important, namely, that a woman whose husband has died will automatically be put at once on to full insurance rights without having to make a number of payments to qualify. I would remind the Minister that these widows will still have to pay their National Insurance contributions. We must not forget the 10s. widow and the no shilling widow. I remember that when I raised this matter of the difficulties experienced by 10s. widows some years ago, I got indignant letters from women who asid, "You talk about the 10s. widow. We are no shilling widows." Widows who go out to earn their living under very difficult conditions have to pay their full National Insurance contributions out of their often meagre wages. The consequence is that the so-called 10s. widow is at the moment getting less than half of her 10s. when that amount is set against what she has to pay back to the State.
I want to say a word or two this afternoon about the position of widows, in anticipation of what I hope will be a serious debate in Committee. In my view, the general formula, of which the Minister has given a rough indication this afternoon, is exceedingly plausible and rather dangerous. The Minister spoke of the young, fit and childless widow. He said, quite rightly, that Britain cannot


afford to keep for ever, without her doing any work, the young, fit childless widow.
Let us make it quite clear that none of the payments we make to any widows in this country would keep them; no young, fit and childless widow even now, at the age of 40, could live on what she would get from the present National Assistance benefits. We do not hand out to them £ 10 or £ 15 a week so that they may sit hack in luxury and idleness. Nevertheless, I believe that some such fear was in the minds of those who shaped the first National Insurance Act, was at the back of the minds of the Committees which have reported to the Minister, and is even behind this Bill today.
I believe that we are doing injustice to a group of widows whose husbands happened to die on the wrong day. of all anomalies, the worst is the anomaly which shifts out of the full benefits of the Welfare State into the 10s. National Insurance class a group of widows whose only misfortune is that their husbands died on the wrong side of a certain appointed day. Among those, the 10s. widow receives only the concession in the Bill that she will walk straight into full insurance rights if she starts paying her insurance contributions.
I have been worried about the change of age from 40 to 50, and that was why I interrupted the Minister. I hope there will be second thoughts about this in Committee, particularly as regards the widowed mother in the 40 to 50 age group. The Minister pointed out that there were anomalies under the present scheme. I tried to suggest that there would be still graver anomalies even when we moved the age to 50 and excluded any widow between 40 and 50, once her children were grown up, from getting any benefit under this scheme.
I am worried about the widowed mother with two or three children who, having brought up her children, comes to the age, as it will be under this Bill of somewhere between 40 and 50 and whose youngest child passes from the stage when the child itself and the mother qualify for any help. Somewhere between the age of 40 and 50 the widowed mother has to go out on to the labour market. She has done one of the noblest and most highly skilled jobs which anyone can do in the community. Very often, she has

brought up her children in the cramping circumstances of widows' allowances, and has saved the State at least three, and possibly four, times the expense which might have been incurred, if, on becoming a widow, she had decided to abrogate her responsibility and throw it upon the State. We pay £ 6 or £ 7— sometimes £ 8— a week to keep deprived children under the children's committees of this country. We probably pay any sum between £ 3 and £ 6 a week to keep the child who has gone wrong in Borstal or some other preventive or protective institution. Yet these widowed mothers have been keeping their children on something like a third of that amount.
I seriously suggest that all the proposed figures for payments to widows in this Bill are inadequate. If we are to say to a widowed mother, "Having done that service for the State, having brought up your children, you are now 43. 44 or 45 and you must compete in the labour market and learn a new trade. There is nothing the State can do for you." we shall be doing a great wrong to some very deserving mothers. When we get down to business in Committee, I hope that with the Minister's support we shall be able to devise some means of increasing the help proposed for widowed mothers. I conclude as I began by saying that 1 welcome the Bill and hope that in Committee we shall take the opportunity as a council of State to examine some of the fundamental issues which it raises and particularly that of the widowed mother

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: My right hon. Friend must be extremely gratified with the reception which the Bill has received. It does not complete the picture of National Insurance in this country, but it will be agreed that it is another logical step following on what Governments from both sides of the House have done for many years, starting, of course, soon after the turn of the century with the Liberal Government of that day.
There is only one alarming Clause in the Bill which my right hon. Friend did not explain clearly and that is the Clause which changes the meaning of monogamy and polygamy. I trust that it has no sinister aspect and is not otherwise out of keeping with the Bill. The other


Clauses seem to have general acceptance. Like the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) I have been disturbed by the problem of widows. Of course, if we treated widowhood itself as a basis for much larger benefits, I suppose that my right hon. Friend would then have to run in terror from the National Association of Spinsters. That is an awful possibility with which he and future Ministers might be confronted.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The hon. Member should not be personal.

Mr. Gower: The spinsters might claim, with some justice, that their plight was even worse, because they have not had the good fortune at some stage of their lives of having the assistance of a husband. They might say that in that respect life had treated them even more poorly than it had their widowed friends.
My right hon. Friend has not entirely dealt with what I consider to be a major defect. It is true that the Bill goes some way to meeting the problems of widowed mothers, but it does not deal with the fact that many widows, by virtue of having been married, on the death of their husbands find themselves suddenly suffering under a substantial disability. Does my hon. Friend contemplate taking some action which will meet the transitional period between a woman becoming a widow and beginning to earn? There is already an arrangement by which, when a woman becomes a widow, for a certain number of weeks she receives a full widow's pension. Could not that arrangement be extended to cover a longer time? It is one of the difficulties of the 10s. widows and the so-called "no shilling" widows that they are suddenly faced with the job of having to work again.
I should say that the disability is far greater if a woman has been married for 30 years, while it may be negligible in the case of a woman married for only two or three years. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend should consider widowhood as such as a ground for special consideration. A woman may have been married merely for a matter of months and in that case her marriage is merely an incident in her life. However, if she has been married for a very long time, she

may have a case for continuing to receive for a far longer period the payments which are made for so many weeks. The length of time for which she receives the payments could be adjusted according to the length of her married life.
We all recognise that this is an extremely difficult problem. I have been in touch with both kinds of widow. An odd feature is that a person who receives 10s. is more aware of her plight than is a person who receives nothing at all. It is one of the peculiarities of the problem that the no shilling widow in many cases does not realise her plight. Because she receives a limited benefit, the 10s. widow cannot understand why that benefit is not increased and it is extremely difficult to explain. It is not easy to make a long explanation on the lines of my right hon. Friend's speech. It is impossible in some cases to explain why their benefits are the only ones which have stood still in this way. I hope that the difficulty about this period of time would at least be considered and studied.
On both sides of the House the Bill is welcomed. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) said that the increases will be swallowed up in the price increases of recent years. That is not entirely the case, because many recipients of family allowances have increased their earnings. The provisions of the Bill are to meet the particular problems of the larger family. I recognise, of course, that there are those whose earnings have not increased, but a large number of people with large families will have increased their earnings and the provisions of the Bill are to meet the peculiar problems of those with extra family responsibilities.
It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East that all family allowances should have been increased, but we all recognise that that would be something on an entirely different level. In debates on former Bills there have been strong pleas for allowances for the first child, but we know that the cost of that, if not prohibitive, would be on a completely different level from that of the present Bill. That is not necessarily a valid criticism of the present Measure which within its scope is a logical step. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have often advocated different rates and selected differences in rates. This step is


as logical as some of those advocated from the other side of the House. I hope that both sides of the House will combine to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I am sure that the Minister has had a very agreeable task in introducing this Bill. Even hardened politicians like introducing popular rather than unpopular Measures, and although the right hon. Gentleman is pretty tough, I am sure that he found this an agreeable beginning to his period of office. This is his first substantial Bill as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
When the right hon. Gentleman rose to speak, I think he must for a moment have found himself thinking of his perdecessor, who referred this matter we are discussing to the National Insurance Advisory Committee on Widow's Benefit in March, 1954. Certainly I find it strange not to see the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor in charge of this Bill, and I take this opportunity of expressing to him the gratitude I personally feel for his unfailing courtesy, and of paying a tribute to what I think was the most remarkable grasp which he had of this complex subject. Moreover, he carried on social policy in the Ministry in a way which, I feel sure, met with the approval of both sides of the House
I wish to turn to the first main proposal of the Bill, which is really part of the Budgetary and economic policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, namely, the increase in the family allowance for the third child and subsequent children. This is welcome. I regret, however, that the right hon. Gentleman did not propose to increase the family allowance for the second child. I thought I saw the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) looking at me very keenly when he made his observations a few moments ago, for certainly I have always been an advocate of a family allowance for the first child.
The Chancellor has missed an opportunity here. He has disclosed his mind twice now, saying he wants a period of stability. He did so first to the Economic Committee of the Trades Union Congress, and subsequently in public in a speech the other day. What the right hon. Gentleman wants now, as also voiced by the Prime Minister in his

speech at Perth, is a period of stability, a period during which further calls on the national income in wages and salaries and personal incomes will be moderated and, if possible, brought for a time to a halt in order that our economy may recover and we may re-establish confidence in our future and build up our reserves.
It seems to me that he could have struck a bold blow for this policy if he had been prepared to increase the family allowances all round. I think that it is the difficulty of the family man to meet the increases in costs which is, to a large extent, the inspiration behind the demand for higher wages and salaries. To have tempered that a little by an increase in the family allowances all round would have been a contribution towards the policy which the right hon. Gentleman wishes to follow.
This introduction of a differential between the second child and the third and subsequent children is a new feature in the family allowance system. We have already many differentials in child allowances of one kind and another, and it is extraordinarily difficult for ordinary persons to relate the cost of children to such differing amounts, according to different circumstances. For that reason, it would have been preferable to have increased the family allowances generally instead of selecting the third child and subsequent children for this increase. Anyhow, it is too late to do anything about that now. I think the Money Resolution will prevent us from moving any Amendments in Committee to that end. As I read it, the Bill cannot be amended in that respect.
I turn now to the child allowance for widowed mothers. This is a feature of the Bill which may be capable of discussion and possibly improvement in Committee. The question is, is the 5s. increase proposed enough? My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand), who began the debate from this side of the House, has already reported to the House the contents of a letter he received from a representative body of women's organisations. I doubt whether the increase is enough. Indeed, I think all our social payments are on the low side.
I say again what I said in relation to the retirement pension, that I really think the time is coming when we shall have to


raise our targets and lift our standards, because when the best has been said about the social payments, the fact remains they are, in general, either 1946 or 1948 standards written up to date. I do not think they are good enough.
After all, we hear a great deal about the prosperity of the country and the higher standards of the working folk, which we can agree exist. There is no doubt about it. The general mass of the people of Britain are living on a higher standard today than ever before. We may as well acknowledge the truth, because that is it. Although they are all hard up— we are all hard up— that is largely because as their wages have increased, as they have in wide areas of industry, they naturally have pursued their expanding desire for the amenities and comforts and enjoyments of life, and in these days many things which would have been regarded as luxuries in my childhood are now accepted as common features of every household. We all want to see that continue.
So our targets are bound to be too low if all we do is to bring up to date 1946 or 1948 standards— because 1946 standards, as I have repeatedly said, had their roots in 1938 standards and really provided for very little more than a reasonable public assistance level before the war. So if I pick out the proposed increase of 5s. for the widowed mother with a child and say it is low, that is a criticism which can be applied all round; but since we are dealing with this benefit for a particularly deserving section of those who receive the benefits of our welfare arrangements, we can say that this should be put higher, even though other benefits remain at their existing level. I think that further consideration of that should be given in Committee.
The crucial test is the one which my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East made, of adding up the total income of the widowed mother to see whether all-in it represents a satisfactory standard of life for a woman who is left alone, who feels great insecurity and fear for the future, which unless she is careful she will convey to her children psychologically in a most undesirable way, whereas we want to see her firmly established in the community, able to face the future without any serious doubt of

being able to bring up her family in a decent way.
Now I come to the 10s. widows who at different times have assumed a political importance probably out of all proportion to their numbers. The 10s. widow has become almost as explosive as the pre-Oaksey widow, who in another connection scored a notable triumph over the Minister, assisted as she was by the most violent advocacy of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), and by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan).
We hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider the position of the 10s. widow. I know that some people argue that the 10s. widow should never have been. They argue that it was a mistake to allow this reserved benefit to continue. After all, in other connections certain benefits under the old scheme were discontinued and replaced by new ones, and some people grumbled about it. There was the expectation of many people to get the 10s. or 20s. pension at the appropriate age without the retirement condition. When it was replaced by the new benefit with the retirement condition, it will be remembered that there was a certain amount of grumbling about that. However, in this case the reserved right to the 10s. widow's pension was retained and carried forward under the new scheme. Therefore, it is no good saying now that the 10s. widow ought never to have been. She is.
What do we do about it? It can be argued that, since this benefit was not perhaps fully justified at the time, we can let inflation fritter it away and reduce its value to a 2d. stamp without our feeling any pangs about it. That is a wrong approach. Having given the benefit of a personal reserved right, we have a duty to preserve its value.

Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Member advocate that without doing something for the other class which has been mentioned in the debate?

Mr. Houghton: I do not think we should confuse the two. If there are widows without benefit who ought to have benefit, let us provide it, but do not let us mix that up with the simple point of bringing up to date the purchasing power of the reserved 10s. widow's pension. This is the logic and equity of the


matter. If the 10s. widow is not entitled to the benefit any more, we should have the courage to take it away. We should not leave the pension there and let it decline in value and justify that on the ground that it is a reserved benefit.

Dr. King: I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that there is no grudging reservation of any kind and that the pension is something to which the widow has a right. There is no doubt about that at all, is there?

Mr. Houghton: There is no doubt at all. The National Insurance Act, 1946, decided that she had the right. The Act could have taken it away, but it did not. It took other benefits away from the old scheme and replaced them by new, and the House could have done the same in this case. It did not do so, and therefore it confirmed the right of these widows to have their 10s. pension. If the House decides that it is no longer justified, it has a perfect right to withdraw it, for the House is supreme in this matter, but there is no suggestion that that should be done. Therefore we are under the simple obligation to maintain the purchasing power of the benefit to which this House decided these widows had a right, and which no one is now proposing to take away from them.
I come now to the difficult question of the widowed mother and the problem of the 40–50 age limit. If I may say so with respect, it was on this point that the Minister failed to give us a very clear picture of the new proposals. He should have pointed out that the new proposals are a new set of proposals to replace the old. It is not a simple question of lifting the age from 40 to 50 below which a widowed mother, passing out of widowed mother's allowance, is barred from drawing a widow's pension. The new arrangement gives the widowed mother between 40 and 50 who passes out of widowed mother's allowance the right to retain the widow's element of the widowed mother's allowance until the child reaches the age of 18, whether it is at school or not. Indeed, she retains the widow's element of the widowed mother's allowance even if that child marries before the age of 18, as long as the child continues to live at home. This proposal is to be found in paragraph 40

of the Report of the National Insurance Advisory Committee.
This, of course, is a substantial improvement on the present arrangements for many widows, and it seeks to remedy the very thing that has been criticised this afternoon. It enables the widow whose child leaves school at the normal age to retain a widow's pension for three years longer, whatever age she may be; she is to retain the widow's element of the widowed mother's allowance for three years longer even though the child has left school and gone to work, and even though the child marries during that time. That is a very distinct additional provision, and in this particular case goes beyond the provision of giving allowances in respect of children who stay at school until they are 18. This is given to the widow whether the child continues at school or not, and even though the child is employed and bringing home wages and making a contribution to the maintenance of the home.
It is a noticeable change in the proposals, and it means that a number of widowed mothers will continue to draw some benefit under the new proposals which they would not draw under the existing proposals, despite the benefit of the lower age. Therefore we have to weigh one set of proposals against the other. Some will benefit more under the new than under the old, and some will be better off under the old arrangements than under the new. This is the difficulty when we are facing a conception of benefit different from the one now in existence. I am not sure that there will be united opinion on this matter on either side of the House. In Committee arguments may be used on both sides for and against the new proposals. I see advantages in the new arrangements, and I should certainly wish to retain those advantages in any revision of the benefits agreed upon in Committee, whatever we do about the question of age.
It is very difficult to generalise about widows. The best thing that can happen to most of them is that they should get married again, and the best chance of getting married again is to go out into the world and meet men—and that they are more likely to do at work than if they sit at home waiting for the milkman. We should do all we can to encourage widows to reinstate themselves in the community


and workaday life and look to the future, either in the widowed state or in the hope of remarriage. I do not think that in these days we want to think of the widow as a sad-faced woman who wears widow's weeds for years after her husband dies and sits at home lamenting her lot.
We must not be sentimental about this. It is for their own happiness and for the good of the community and their families that they should go out, but at the same time we want to safeguard those widows for whom that opportunity is not readily available. I suggest to the House that there is a new generation of women coming on now, many of whom will be the widows of the future.
They are women who have done jobs of work, women who have skill, women who are used to office or factory life or work in hospitals or in domestic service, or who have done some other work while they were single. Many of them carry on their jobs for a while after they are married. In my constituency, many of them are doing jobs of that kind in the textile industry, while bringing up their children. There is a local tradition that women work in the mills, and they like to go on doing it. In many cases it provides them with the opportunity of getting out of their homes for some hours a day and mixing with other people while having a job of work. We want to encourage that wherever possible.
We wish, however, to underpin the security of the household and the welfare of the family in all cases where for the widow to go out to work is not possible or appropriate. I wish that the administration of these benefits could be more flexible, and that we could look at the position of persons and of families separately and judge the merits of their particular circumstances. Obviously, that would be impossible. I think that when we come to choose between the old arrangement and the new, or try to find a compromise between the two, we should have these two considerations in mind— the encouragement of those who can go out to work while maintaining their own homes, and the position of those who are not, for various reasons, able to do so.
We are giving a very valuable benefit to those not able to do so because of sickness or because they are unable to find a job. I am sure that from the trade

union side those two concessions are very welcome indeed. It is the flying start to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of putting them into insurance straight away, so that they will be safeguarded in cases of sickness or unemployment.
These are the main features of the Bill which will engage our attention. In many ways, the Bill will be welcome, and I should like to say what a grand job of work has been done by the National Insurance Advisory Committee. I only wish there was some such instrument to give us a report before the Finance Bill, so that we should know what was going to be in it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be able to say, "I am implementing the Report in full and you fully understand it because you have read it". How much better that would be.
We have a curtain raiser to these National Insurance Bills when we have a full explanatory report, complete with historical details, from the Advisory Committee. I think that these reports are full of common sense, and that the House ought to study the recommendations very carefully before setting them aside. They are the keynote which we should have to guide us when we go into Committee.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan: Perhaps the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) will forgive me if I do not follow him in some of his more contentious arguments because I think that we can look forward to having some dingdong battles in Committee on the Bill.
I should like to add my congratulations to those extended to my right hon. Friend on bringing forward this his first major Measure in his present office, and to echo also the very generous tribute which the hon. Member for Sowerby paid to my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Lord Ingleby. I have been a back bencher for five years and I have listened to practically every important speech which the noble Lord made as a Member of this House. It is in no way a reflection upon his successor to say that no one on either side of the House had as remarkable and detailed a grasp of these National Insurance problems as he had. He is in every sense of the word a technical expert. We on the back benches shall miss his counsel. We sometimes disagreed with him, but I must say that he was usually right.
I am also delighted that my right hon. Friend was able to bring this Bill forward earlier than was anticipated. I hope that he will not allow the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) to suggest that he was the only one to try to bring pressure to bear on the Minister in this matter, because we did too.
As regards the Bill itself and the changes affecting widows, I think that my right hon. Friend has the right basis in what he is proposing. I think that the principles are right but the difficulty will be their application. Although he has the timing of the appointed day to juggle with, I am afraid that there may be a series of anomalies and also a difficult hiatus caused by the parallel implementation of quite different principles. I think that we ought to look at that point very carefully in Committee.
I do not want to delay the House, and the point which I should most like to talk about concerns the position of the widowed mother. I was very much in agreement with what the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East said today and in our consideration of another Bill when we raised the amount which the widowed mother could earn without deductions. I think that we were on the right lines. What we were making was a welcome relaxation in that respect, and we were improving on the remarkable change which the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill) made in the Bill in 1951, when she exempted the earnings of the widowed mother up to 60s. on an entirely different basis. But we must remember that we have not yet answered to our own satisfaction the question whether it is or is not right for widowed mothers to go out to work.
Of course, we cannot generalise about this problem. The suggestion of the hon. Member for Sowerby that widows ought to go out to work in order to meet future husbands is going to make competition worse for spinsters. He also went on to suggest that it would be desirable to have the benefits adjusted to each particular case. He was right, but unfortunately it cannot be done in that way. I think that the truth of the matter is that the House and the country as a whole have not the material on which

to take a proper view of the economic position of the widowed mother.
In some localities it is possible for some widowed mothers to do part-time work which will in no way interfere with their making a home for the children. For others, that is not possible. Equally, there are some mothers who can go out to work and arrange for people to look after their children, while others find that impossible. There is no real evidence on which we can base our conclusion.
If we look at the Report of the Advisory Committee on the earnings limit we find the statement there are 100,000 drawing the widowed mother's allowance, of whom 20,000 are earning £ 2 or more. But there are no statistics which tell us the total number of widowed mothers who in fact are going out to work. We do not know the numbers and we do not know their prospects in the labour market. I feel that that is not naturally the business of the Advisory Committee, and that it would be excellent if the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Pensions jointly could initiate a social survey which would give us the facts about all the economic and social circumstances which affect the life of the widowed mother.
Now I want to make a suggestion in the full consciousness that I have no evidence in support of it. The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East said it was undesirable for a mother with children under school age to go to work. I entirely agree with him as regards the majority of cases. Indeed, I am beginning to wonder whether there is not a case for considering a social allowance to the widowed mother, apart from the allowances, for the fact of guardianship, in the sense that she loses the opportunity to go to work if she has to keep the home going for children who are not at school.
That extra allowance or benefit, or whatever it may be called, would be payable only if the circumstances justified it, and it would be taxable. It could not be applied to every family or to every widowed mother who might not deem it desirable to go to work. Because I think that we have not yet found the right solution of the problems of the widowed mother, I hope that this suggestion will be considered.

6.21 p. m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: I believe that all of us on this side of the House welcome the interesting remarks of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan).
Although I welcome the Bill, I am disappointed that we have not had a general review of the social insurance schemes long before now. Hon. Members are entitled to that because we know from experience of the 1948 legislation that there are a number of anomalies which should be corrected, particularly sickness benefit. For instance, some of us on this side of the House would like something done about Section 62 of the Act, and also about non-contributory pensioners. Quite a number of such anomalies could have been dealt with in this Bill but, as that has not been done, I hope that we shall have a future opportunity to deal with many of them.
I want to pay tribute to those who have administered our National Insurance schemes from the beginning, and particularly to those who were brought into the organisation in 1948. They have done a wonderful job of work, and hon. Members can say generally that there has not been much criticism of the administration in that respect.
I also want to join in the tribute paid to the National Insurance Advisory Committee for its excellent reports and work. Unfortunately we do not know what reports have been received from local advisory committees, of which there are a large number. I should like to see a White Paper giving their recommendations, although I think it would have to be a very large one, as a number of interesting recommendations have been made by those committees.
The tone in which the Minister introduced the Second Reading of this Bill pleased me. I like the right hon. Gentleman much better as Minister of Pensions and National Insurance than as Minister of Transport, and I am glad that he excelled himself this afternoon. I welcome the increases but, speaking personally, I should welcome still more an all-round increase and family allowances paid for the first child as well. I am not saying that merely as party propaganda but because I believe firmly in it, as I am sure do other hon. Members.
I have always linked family allowances with school meals. Both represent an ideal to me. However, school meals have not been passed on to the children as they should have been. I appreciate, Sir, that school meals do not come within the scope of the Bill but they are another form of family allowance.
I welcome the uplift to the age of 18 because it will have a great influence on children staying on at school, especially in some rural districts where there is great demand upon their labour owing to the present manpower shortage. Parents continually ask me to do something to help their boys to leave school at the age of 15, so I welcome this increase, particularly as regards apprentices. There has been great difficulty in getting boys to take apprenticeships, so this increase will give an impetus in that direction also. I also welcome the provision in the Bill to include mentally and physically handicapped children. That is a great reform. The Minister ought to be proud of that provision, whatever else is in the Bill.
I do not want to repeat what has been said about widowed mothers and widows, but I agree with the hon. Member for Reigate that we should have more information in that respect. It was possible to have a survey of those remaining at work up to the age of 55. Is it not possible to make a survey of the circumstances of widows after their bereavement? Conditions in districts vary considerably, and such information would confirm what some of us have said in this connection, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton).
I was disappointed that the Minister did not give us figures in connection with the change from 40 to 50 years of age. Surely figures are available? Otherwise how do the actuaries estimate what contribution is required from the insured contributor? Perhaps this information will be available for the Committee stage of the Bill.
I am certain that a great deal of advice has been given by local advisory committees. Have any of them made suggestions or recommendations about the new proposals in the Bill? I take the view that widowhood is a tragic thing. and I do not share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby as to what widows should do. We in Wales are sentimental and I should not like to


advocate what my hon. Friend advocated this afternoon. At the same time, I agree that proper provision must be made for widows, and I only wish that something could have been done in this Bill for the 10s. widow. Those of us who look at this matter from the ethical standpoint remember that the Bible says that not one sparrow shall fall to the ground, and 1 place the 10s. widow in that category.
Despite what I have said in favour of the Bill, I have offered some criticisms, and I hope that I shall have the opportunity during the Committee stage to make more. All the same, I say that this Bill is bound to make many people much happier.

6.30 p. m.

Mr. Thomas Steele: We have had a very interesting debate. It has shown the various opinions which are held on both sides of the House, and we shall no doubt have them developed in Committee.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) made a most interesting suggestion. I hope and trust that the Minister will follow it up. A social survey such as was suggested by the hon. Member would be very worth while. The Minister may recall that the National Institute of Economic and Social Research had the job of surveying the National Health Service, and had the Guillebaud Committee not had the information provided by the Institute, its Report would not have been so worth while. If the suggestion made by the hon. Member is adopted we shall have information which will be very helpful to us.
The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) indicated that the Bill contained some minor points. It has, of course, one major Clause, Clause 5, for which the hon. Gentleman himself was responsible. We should compliment him upon his responsibility for the major part of the Bill, but the minor parts are also very important.
It can scarcely be expected that I shall say anything new at this stage. Even the Minister has mentioned the seaman from Sierra Leone whose wife is being brought within the scope of the Bill in that she will be able to obtain family allowance.
The main question about family allowances is why the extra 2s. should be paid only in respect of third and subsequent children. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) put a point on which we are entitled to an answer. If the extra 2s. is part of the Government's plan to offset the abolition of the bread subsidy and the reduction in the milk subsidy, why is it not paid in respect of the second child as well as the other children?
There is one point about family allowances which has not been made. If the Government feel that the third child requires an extra 2s., why should not the fourth child have an increase and so on —if the Government really believe in payment on results?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Perhaps in his leisure moments the hon. Gentleman would work out for me the answer in this case: it is reported to me by my Newcastle office that there is a case in which twelve family allowances are being issued to one family.

Mr. Steele: I should like notice of the question. We had better leave that until the Committee stage, and I have no doubt that I shall have the answer to it then.
With other hon. Members, I welcome the payment of family allowances in the case of children remaining at school until 18 or becoming apprentices. In relation to this provision I recall my own experiences in dealing with the existing position. There was the difficulty of the mentally unfit child, and also the problem of the boy who could not become an apprentice until he reached 16. I do not know whether that problem has now been overcome or whether there are still difficulties. I was always appalled at the number of letters and forms which had to be sent to the families and to headmasters of schools to certify that the children were still at school.
At one time I had the idea that if we increased the age to sixteen for all children irrespective of whether they were at school, we should have overcome the problem of the mentally unfit child and should have abolished all the form-filling in respect of children at school, and also all the difficulties about apprenticeships, because it is recognised in trade union circles that, broadly speaking,


children cannot become apprentices until they are sixteen. However, the Minister has gone beyond that in relation to children at school and apprentices, and I welcome the provision.
I also welcome— it has been generally welcomed— the provision relating to sickness and unemployment benefit, with the contribution credits accorded to widows. This is very valuable. To widows who have young children it will be an extension of the widow's allowance as a form of resettlement benefit to enable them to get back into ordinary employment. The provision of contribution credits for widows is another instance of how we are departing from the idea of an insurance principle. I can remember a very telling speech in a previous debate by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, indicating how far we had departed from the insurance principle. If it were necessary, this provision would be further evidence that today the benefits under our social services are no longer really related to the contributions which are made.
I hope that the Minister will think again about taking away the umbrella represented by the provision for a widow who is incapable of supporting herself. I remember what was said when this provision was being implemented. It is true that there are a number of widows who will not be able to get a doctor's certificate and draw sickness benefit. I am also certain that there will be a number, not many, who may under the provisions of the Bill draw unemployment benefit for a short time, but they will not be suitable for employment. They will fall between two stools, being unsuitable for employment and yet being unable to draw sickness benefit because no doctor will be prepared to give them a certificate. I trust that the existing provision will be retained to act as an umbrella for these cases. I have learned in my experience of insurance that everything that one can possibly think of is bound to happen, and that such cases as these arise.
Most of the debate has been taken up in discussing the position of widowed mothers. I want to draw attention to what the then Minister of Pensions and

National Insurance said on 13th December in the House when he informed us that he was referring the question of widow's benefit to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The right hon. Gentleman made this interesting statement:
I am not altogether happy about the age of 50, which was rather arbitrarily chosen."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1525.]
That statement was made in the context of the debate in which we were discussing the 10s. widow and other widows. I may be wrong in my impression, but my impression was that the Minister had the feeling that the age of 50 was too high as the age at which a woman was able to draw a pension as a right. My impression was that he thought this question should be looked at.
I also had the feeling that he was looking at the question having in mind the possibility of abolishing the right of the 10s. widow pensioner to her entitlement and perhaps reducing the age of 50 to 45 or even 40; because it seemed that what was running in his mind was the fact that the age of 50 was too high and should be reduced. I feel that, left to himself, the then Minister of Pensions and National Insurance might have made a proposal of that kind.
I turn to page 31, Appendix III, of the White Paper. There is one interesting figure to which I want to draw the Minister's attention. Let us look at the figure for the age group 45–49, showing the type of award following the widow's allowance— after the first thirteen weeks; and we find that that age group was the highest percentage of widows who receive nothing under the new scheme. There are 4,000 widows getting the widowed mother's allowance, and 4,600 who get no benefit under the new scheme. That is 49 per cent. of the widows, who, at the end of the period of the widow's allowance, get nothing at all under the new scheme. That is the highest figure in any group. It is also the highest number of people, in the age groups shown under 50, entitled to some benefit under the provisions for widows. It seems to me that that reinforces my plea that something ought to be done for this group of widows.
If we are to ask those widows to go into employment we must look at what their


chances are. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made an interesting suggesting that they should all get married; but I do not know what their prospects are at that stage, and it is not always easy to ensure that they will get married.
Let us look at Appendix VI of the White Paper. Unfortunately, the divisions of age groups are not exactly the same, but if we take the age group 45–54 and consider the total number of widows who normally are gainfully employed, we find that 46 per cent. are unemployed; whereas the figure for single women unemployed is only 25 per cent. As the age groups rise, the percentage increases. It is clear from these figures that the prospects of a widow getting employment after the age of 40 are not very good.
I have read the Committee's Report very carefully, and it seems to me that instead of having in mind the conception which the Minister had when he asked the Committee to look at this question, it has gone in the other direction, and its proposals make matters worse for some of these widows. It seems to me that there is no evidence in the Report for increasing the age from 40 to 50.
I wonder whether the Minister can give us any further information about this point. Perhaps we might be given it in Committee. If we look at Appendix III and at the group including widows up to the age of 50, we find that there are 12,900 widows getting widowed mother's allowance. Can we be given any information about what happens afterwards? It might be interesting to know the position.
As the Minister indicated in a reply to a question put to him, it is clear that fewer widows will get the pension, because he said that he hopes to make savings in that direction to enable him to make provision for the extra 5s. for the widowed mother. The Minister was reinforced in that by my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby, who said that we must look at the provisions of the Bill as against the old provisions. I am not so sure that the new provisions are all that can be desired.
Let us look at the position of the widow aged between 40 and 50. It is true that under the new provisions she will be able to draw either sickness benefit or unemployment benefit when her widowed

mother's allowance ceases. If sickness benefit is paid, possibly she will get it until she is 60, if she is ill, and she will then go on to her retirement pension.
If she gets unemployment benefit, according to the provisions of the Bill. the possibility is that she will be entitled to unemployment benefit for a period of about nineteen months. But that is not a long-term benefit. In fact, she may not get the unemployment benefit for nineteen months, because payment of the unemployment benefit is subject to conditions. The first condition is that she must be available for work, and the possibility is that she might not be. In those circumstances she would not get the unemployment benefit.
I have looked at the example which the Minister gave. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that there might be a widow aged 45 who has a child aged 14. At the end of the application of the widowed mother's allowance provisions she would now get a pension. But if the husband lived until the wife was 49 and the child 18, she would not get a pension. The new provisions mean that when she is 45 and the husband dies, she will draw the widowed mother's allowance until the child is 18 and by then she will be 49 years old. That does not necessarily mean that she will get a pension. In fact, she will be in exactly the same position as the other widow, and no pension will be paid at all. In effect, the right hon. Gentleman has said that whereas the widows are to get off to a flying start in connection with the provisions for sickness and unemployment benefits, the widows between 40 and 50 will be "grounded" by the proposed provisions.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It would be helpful if the hon. Gentleman would apply his mind to how, in the example I gave, one can justify the widow's chance of a permanent pension being affected adversely by the fact that in my latter example her husband lived for four years longer than in my former example. The difference between the two would be highly unfair, whereas our proposal would put them on the same basis.

Mr. Steele: I agree that the proposal would put them on the same basis but it is the unfortunate fact that neither would get a pension.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: There are alternatives.

Mr. Steele: But any alternatives do not measure up to what is required, because we have to look at this question of what is suitable at a particular stage. What age are we to decide upon for the giving of a permanent pension for the widow? It seemed to me that the previous Minister held the view that the present permanent position at the age of 50 represented an age that was too high, and that he had in mind reducing the age. But the provision for pension after the widowed mother allowance has ceased between the age of 40 and 50 needs careful examination. I believe it would be wrong to take away the present provision.
The extra 5s. provided for the widowed mother has been mentioned. I am happy that this new principle has been accepted. I have mentioned before that I was never happy about the position. When the Beveridge proposals were put forward there was too much emphasis on the question of equality of benefit, and it seemed to me that the widowed mother with children could not be compared with old-age pensioners. I am happy that we have got away from that principle and have adopted this new one. My hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby said that 5s. is not sufficient. He believes that all the targets are too low and should be raised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East thinks that the provisions are not enough,
I have extracted some figures which I wish to quote because I think them important. In paragraph 155. the Beveridge Report states:
The rate of …benefit proposed is designed to be sufficient, in combination with children's allowances, to meet subsistence needs, even if the widow does not undertake any gainful occupation while she is looking after the children.
I think, in effect, we are hoping that now we shall do even more than provide merely subsistence levels. Taking a widow with two children aged 4 and 6, the provisions under the Bill would mean that the widow would have 40s.;the first and second child would have 16s. 6d. each, which is made up of 8s. and 3s. 6d. plus 5s., making a total of 73s. The National Assistance scales provide 40s. for the widow and the first child would have 15s. 6d. The second child would have

13s. The very important factor of the rent is taken into account, and if we take it at 10s.;total that up we get 78s. 6d. So there we have National Assistance scales which are 5s. 6d. more than would be provided under this Bill.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That calculation depends on certain assumptions on the National Assistance side of the equation as to the age of the children owing to the different child allowances at different ages.

Mr. Steele: I agree, but the right hon. Gentleman will note that the ages of 4 and 6 which I have taken are not the best ages I might have used had I desired to make the case much more damning. I have been conservative in my estimate in that regard.
I have examined the Explanatory Memorandum issued before the National Assistance scales were increased on the last occasion, and I will take the example given there which I think is fair enough. It is that of a married couple with three children aged 12, 8 and 3— one in each age group. If the woman was widowed she would be entitled to £ 4 9s. 6d. under the Bill but under the National Assistance scales as outlined and the example used in that Memorandum she would be entitled to £4 19s., which would mean in effect that she would still be entitled to an Assistance grant of 9s. 6d.
I appreciate and welcome the new principle which has been adopted, but there are certain grounds for criticism and room for discussion during the Committee stage about whether the amounts are right. No doubt Amendments will be moved.
There is another Bill to be considered after this one, and I have no intention of taking up further the time of hon. Members. I agree with the main provisions of this Bill. We welcome its introduction. No doubt we shall find reason to discuss it in Committee and put forward Amendments, but we have no intention of opposing the Measure tonight.

7.0 p. m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): There have been so many comments this afternoon on this Bill which need an answer that I hope that hon. Members will accept that I will do my best to answer what I think are the major questions. The


remainder we can perhaps deal with on the Committee stage of the Bill, because we on this side of the House are equally anxious to have adequate time to deal with the Bill.
The right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Marquand) welcomed the provisions of the Bill as far as they go. That in fact seems to have been the pattern of the majority of the speeches from the benches opposite. The right hon. Member queried the 2s. increase in family allowances for the third and subsequent children, and asked whether that was some compensation for the removal of subsidies. He referred also to the rise in food prices in 1955. The last thing I want to do is to disturb the harmony which has existed throughout the debate so far. This is not a controversial subject, but I think I should perhaps point out that family allowances were only 5s. per head when the party of the right hon. Member was in power. They were still 5s. when the party left office in 1951.
The right hon. Member went on to ask why we could not make this increase for the second child. That point has been repeated several times. I would say in answer that the increase is an increase for the family. The money which is paid additionally for the third and subsequent children goes into the family exchequer and, I have no doubt, will be spent to meet the whole of the family requirements.
The right hon. Member again stressed the difficulty which the widowed mother will encounter in entering the labour market, a point which was raised subsequently by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). I think that I cannot do better than to refer to the specific wording of the Report (Cmd. 9684) which is very clear on the subject. The members of the National Insurance Advisory Committee, to whom tribute has been rightly paid as responsible individuals, said in paragraph 48:
We think that women who are widowed even in the late forties, or who have reached this age when widowed mother's allowance is no longer payable, ought in general to be able to find employment within that period. We have reached this conclusion after considering statistics, some of which were specially obtained for us, as to the occupational position of widows and the volume of unemployment amongst them.

The Committee made a reservation:
We wish to emphasise, however, that our conclusion relates to present employment conditions: if large scale unemployment were to occur the qualifying age for widow's pension might have to he reconsidered.
I think that in general that is the answer to the concern expressed today about the position of widows in their forties entering the employment field.
The right hon. Member made reference again to National Assistance, and the fact that the numbers had risen, as was shown in the Answer which my right hon. Friend gave to him when he asked a Parliamentary Question. It is true that the numbers had gone up in the figures he quoted, but I think it is always a little invidious to quote just one example. If the right hon. Member had been able to go back a little further than the three months to which he referred he would I have found that the total number of people drawing National Assistance has dropped by nearly 200,000 since the year 1954 and early 1955. So there has been a considerable reduction in the number of individuals and families drawing National Assistance, although the right hon. Member referred specifically to the quarter at the beginning of this year.

Mr. Marquand: The hon. Lady will understand that I asked that Question particularly to ascertain what had happened since the scale rates had been increased. Surely a comparison with the past is almost irrelevant to our present discussion. We have to discover how many are drawing Assistance on the present scale rates.

Miss Pitt: What is really relevant, surely, is how many people in the population are having to seek National Assistance in order to supplement their income, whatever may be the source. The general tendency has fallen considerably over the past eighteen months.

Mr. Marquand: Will the hon. Lady arrange, without the necessity of my putting a Question on the Order Paper, to get the up-to-date figures before the Committee stage of the Bill?

Miss Pitt: Yes, indeed. The right hon. Member was unlucky in that the Question was not reached in time for an Oral Answer. We have more up-to-date information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) mentioned the question of deprived children, and in particular unco-operative parents who sometimes do not make the necessary contribution when their children are taken into care. I will refer to this matter only briefly, but I express to my hon. Friend my sympathy on the point that he has in mind. For eight years I served on the Children's Committee in Birmingham and I know the problems of dealing with deprived children. I am particularly glad that in this Bill we make a modest improvement, in my opinion, on the methods that are now being used in order to try to return those children to their parents and their own families.
The hon. Member for Itchen stressed that we are not yet fully alive to the hardship of the widowed mother. Perhaps there is a large measure of truth in that. The widowed mother does not belong to any organised body and we do not get constant protests here or elsewhere made on behalf of these women. I am very glad that all hon. Members today find themselves so much in agreement with the need to give special care and attention to the widowed mother because of her responsibilities in bringing up a family.
I should like also to thank the hon. Member for Itchen for his tribute to the Ministry. I liked especially the phrase he used when he said that it was "much loved." I think that all the officers of our Ministry will very much appreciate the fact that, whereas so often, I am afraid, civil servants are spoken of in less polite terms, the hon. Member has been most generous—and rightly so—in commending the work which they do.
The hon. Member also said that he wished the Press would talk about normal families instead of abnormal ones. How I agree with the hon. Member. I remember him making the same point in an Adournment debate some time ago, when he said that the mother who murdered her child made news, but the mother who looked after her child never hit the newspaper headlines. Nevertheless, it is the good mother, the widowed mother, who looks after her children, makes a home for them and works and fights for them, with whom we are concerned today. Whether she makes news-

paper headlines or not, it is a matter of conscience with all of us to help her as much as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) asked if we could help him to explain to the 10s. widows the apparent difference of treatment in their case. We came across the question of the 10s. widow again in the speech of the hon. Member for Sowerby, (Mr. Houghton) who, much to my surprise, is an advocate of the 10s. widow. I shall have something to say on that subject a little later, so I shall content myself now by saying that the hon. Member always takes such a responsible view, and is so broad in his outlook on all welfare matters, that I am genuinely surprised to find him coming down in support of the 10s. widow.

Mr. Houghton: Will the hon. Lady permit me to say that I pressed the case of the 10s. widow when my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) was Minister a long time ago? I have been consistent. I may be misguided, but that is how it is.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Member is at least consistent in his affection, which is a very commendable trait.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barry made one point which I should like to emphasise. It was apropos of the comment that 10s. is all too little to compensate for the removal of bread and milk subsidies. He said, very sensibly, that in the majority of cases, families welcome and enjoy the benefit of wage increases which will provide compensation for those changes.
I come again to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby, apart from his observations on the 10s. widow, I should again like to thank him for his tribute to Lord Ingleby, the former Minister. I hope that Lord Ingleby will read the comments and the tributes which have been accorded to him today. The hon. Member for Sowerby said that he is an advocate of family allowance for the first child, so he seems to be somewhat of a rebel in many matters. I do not think that there is time to pursue that argument, an argument which has been pursued here over and over again.
He referred to the 10s. widow in, I think, these terms "Some people argue


she should never have had a right to this 10s. pension". I should like to deal with that more fully, but in fact 1 think that it is still questionable whether the right action was taken in 1948.
The hon. Member for Sowerby also said that we should do all we can to encourage widows to go out to work. I find myself in agreement with that view. I think that any woman who has the ability and the will to go out to work —and who can make proper arrangements for her children—should be encouraged to live in the wider world outside. I am quite sure that life is much more interesting when she can shut the front door of her house behind her and make contact with other people. She has lost much by losing her husband, but there are compensations if she can take a job outside— again, provided that her children are cared for.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Vaughan-Morgan) came back to the question of work, and I hope that I have answered that question. He also very sensibly made the point that one cannot generalise. The position of every woman will be different— whether she is able to work, whether work is available, etc. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West raised again the question of why the 2s. should not be payable for the second child.

Dame Irene Ward: Before my hon. Friend finishes her observations on the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, can she say what she has in mind about his proposal for a general survey, which all of us think very important, to get full information on certain points?

Miss Pitt: I have had a word with my right hon. Friend, and we are prepared to look at that.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West said that we were getting further away from insurance principles with the new recommendations to give widows a flying start for sickness and unemployment benefit. I would remind him, however, that a necessary preliminary to the flying start is that the husband should have been an insured person and that contributions should have been paid for him. The link with the contributory insurance principle is still there.
The hon. Gentleman also referred— and here I should like to correct him if he will allow me— to Appendix VI of the N. I. A. C. Report, and drew our attention to the difference between the proportion of widows and the proportion of single women employed and unemployed—as he said. In fact, what the table shows is the number of women occupied and unoccupied. I can conceive that there must be a variety of reasons why women, single, widowed or married, should be occupied in their homes or looking after families and not necessarily unemployed. I hope that I have made that clear.
The main purpose of this Bill is quite clear and has been dealt with at some length, so I do not want to take up further time on it. We are about to effect improvements in family allowances, especially for those families with a large number of children. This Measure will improve the position of widows, especially of widowed mothers, and the opportunity has been taken to close certain gaps which experience has shown to exist in National Insurance. The increase in family allowances is the biggest item because it is obviously the most widespread and, as my right hon. Friend has already reminded us, it is the most expensive.
I want to stress that family allowance is a family benefit, as the name implies, and is intended to assist all families, irrespective of income. Earnings are not related to the number of children in the family. We are all well aware, that the greatest expense is when children are young, and usually there is only one wage packet coming in. That surely— if need arises— confirms the merit of family allowances.
I am sometimes surprised that the comment should be made to me— and it has been made again, arising out of these proposals— that family allowances are not warranted. The same comment must have been made to all hon. Members at times. There are always those who say that the parents should be able to manage. There are, I am sorry to say, the older people who comment "We managed without them." There are always those prepared to say that the money is wasted on drink, or smoking, cosmetics, or things like that. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the pools."] Yes, and the pools.
I can only say that I believe that family allowances make a very valuable contribu-


tion to the maintenance of family life in this country. For every case we hear of where an abuse takes place—and, of course, we all hear of the occasional one —there are the thousands more who never attract the Press headlines, families where the money is used wisely and where the children benefit. I have one brief answer myself— but there are thousands of people like me throughout the country who could make the same answer— when anyone questions the merit of family allowances. I reply "My mother had six children and very little to manage on. I wish she had had the benefit of family allowances."
The benefits of family allowances can be seen in the improved physique and increased height of the children. I have no wish to elaborate that or I might be thought to be making a political point. In fact, both parties have claimed "Look at the bonny children ", and it is true. Something which pleases me very much, and which has not been referred to in this debate, is the fact that when boys and girls leave school now at the age of 15 they are no longer boys and girls. They are not quite so adult as they think they are, but they are young men and women.
They are not children— and sometimes frightened children— going out to earn their living for the first time. They are sufficiently mature and strong in body to be able to face the tremendous change in their lives from being school children to being workers in factories or in shops. I am not pretending for one moment that family allowances deserve the whole credit for that. They do not. In part the reason lies in the increased school age, increased social services and in scientific advances. Nevertheless, it is a very big improvement, and one which I am particularly happy to note.
The increase will also help parents who are prepared, very often at great sacrifice, to maintain their children at school or to apprentice their boy—not very often their girl, I am sorry to say—to a good trade, knowing full well that these benefits will help their children later in life. The extension of the family allowance to the age of 18 is a modest measure of practical assistance to such parents but, much more important, it is a measure of encouragement.
The increase to the sixteenth birthday for the physically and mentally handicapped child closes one of the gaps to which I have referred. I am glad that that has been done. Most hon. Members will be aware that after the age of 16, now that the gap is about to be closed, the handicapped child qualifies for National Assistance at the rate of 23s. 6d. a week.
In respect of widows, the most important recommendation is the 5s. increase in benefit for each child. Since the point has been made several times today that this is not thought to be adequate, I would refer to the article inThe Times which the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East mentioned in his speech. In fact, he commended it. That article, referring to the 5s. increase, says:
These new rates really reach subsistence standard" —
That is for children. I will be fair and quote the remainder of the sentence —
 though the widow's own pension still falls short.
Here, from an article which has been commended to us, is confirmation that the 5s. increase is a generous improvement in the position of the widowed mother with children to care for.
The Government are in agreement with the Advisory Committee on the social importance of providing for mothers with adolescent children. All of us have sympathy and respect for the widowed mother in the job that she is doing in caring for her children, although I am sure that the women concerned would like a little more tangible expression than our sympathy and respect. We are now giving it in this practical way.
I should like also to point out, on the question whether 5s. is a sufficient increase or not, that it is a considerable improvement on what has been done before. My right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, reminded us of part of that. I should like to give the whole of the comparison with 1948. The 5s. increased benefit for the first child is more than double the amount paid for the first child in 1948, and for the second child the total payment in benefit and family allowance is over three times the 1948 allowance. For other children, with increased family allowance, the benefit now is nearly four times


the 1948 figure. I think that is the answer to the criticism that has been made.

Mr. Steele: These are very interesting comparisons, but the hon. Lady will recall that a certain right hon. Gentleman who was then in opposition said that we ought not to have brought in family allowances at all.

Miss Pitt: Perhaps I might remind the hon. Gentleman that the Family Allowances Act became law in June, 1945, under the Caretaker Government. I know that the allowances were not paid until the following August, but in fact the Caretaker Government passed that Measure.

Mr. Steele: I am not taking any credit for our party for the passing of that Act. The hon. Lady was saying how much better off these people are now compared with 1948. I was only saying that when the order was given for the family allowances to be paid, it was criticised by the Opposition of that day.

Miss Pitt: I think we are both entitled to feel that we have made our points.
I want to comment on an item in Clause 2 which curiously has not so far called forth any comment today. That is the reduction in the period of marriage necessary before widow's benefit can be paid. When this Bill becomes law, widows will be able to qualify for pensions, subject to the other conditions, if their marriage has lasted for three years or longer, instead of ten years, as now. I think that that is an important step forward in caring for the widow, and I should like to make quite clear that it will apply retrospectively to the widow who has not been entitled to benefit on that count up to now — although, of course, I do not mean a retrospective cash payment. I think it necessary to make that clear. The payment will, in fact, be made from the appointed day.
I have already dealt with Clause 5. which refers to the child committed to the care of the local authority, and who may be returned to the parents for a trial period. I am very glad that that provision has been introduced, for the reasons that I gave earlier.
May I refer to the 10s. widow, since she has intruded upon our debate today. I think it necessary to attempt to answer

some of the points which have been made. The 10s. widow, so called—and I think it is an awful title—has rights preserved from the pre-1948 Acts. Many of the widows who were incapacitated or had children were transferred at once, and those over 50 could qualify for the retirement pension at 60 on specially easy terms. Of the original 450,000, only about 80,000 still remain under 60 and are drawing 10s. But in addition, 65,000 of the 10s. widows' pensions have been awarded since July, 1948, because the pensions were continued.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Can the hon. Lady say how many widows verging on 60—between 55 and 60—are getting only 10s.?

Miss Pitt: I do not think I can answer that question offhand, but I promise that I will let the hon. Lady have that information before we reach the Committee stage. In fact, I have just given part of the answer when I said that about 80,000 from the pre-1948 days are still under 60. There are, however, a number under 60 who have come in since because of their reserved rights under the pre-1948 contributory pension schemes.
I want to refer to various points which have been made on the subject of the 10s. widow. In the Committee stage on the National Insurance Bill in 1954, the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said:
I do not think we could take away from the widow any money she is receiving; but it would be reasonable to say that in future we are not going to pay the 10s. pension to young widows
Similarly, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West said, on the subject
of the 10s. widow:
At that time "—
that is, in 1948—
we thought that we were conferring a benefit on that widow, but it seems to me that we did the very opposite."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th December, 1954; Vol. 535, c. 1535 and 1532]
The result of continuing the benefit means that we still have widows receiving the 10s. pension —childless widows in their twenties and thirties.

Mrs. Mann: We also have them between 55 and 60, and on both sides of the House that is regarded as a standing disgrace.

Miss Pitt: But surely the hon. Lady will agree that it is not necessary that the childless widow still in her twenties and thirties should enjoy the 10s. benefit when her opposite number, who has been widowed since 1948 and whose husband was not in the old contributory pensions scheme, gets nothing.
We ought to limit the amount of money which is available to those widows most in need. The 10s. widow is privileged compared with those whose husbands were not in the 1948 scheme because, for instance, they were too old or were not married before July, 1948, and got no pensions under the National Insurance Scheme. In the Government's opinion, it would be wrong further to increase this differentiation at the expense of the Insurance Fund. I would remind hon. Members that no contributions have been paid towards the 10s. pension since 1948.
The Advisory Committee Report shows no general hardship amongst these widows. About three-quarters of them are in regular employment. The proportion drawing Assistance is lower than in any class of beneficiary under National Insurance. It is only 12½ per cent., compared with 28 per cent. of widowed mothers and 23½ per cent. of retirement pensioners. When a number of them have been re-established in Insurance, as will be the case when this Bill goes through, and with the reduction in the marriage period from ten to three years for those over 50, we shall have dealt with the hardest cases amongst the 10s. widows.
I always think of the social services as a net to help people who fall by the wayside or fall into trouble. This Bill endeavours to strengthen the net in certain respects where it has been shown to be weak, or where, in certain respects, it did not provide any cover for a minority of people in the population who needed it. I am very glad that we are today giving a Second Reading to a Bill which, I am quite sure, will add to something which is the strength of our country, namely our family life.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees) — [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the rate of certain allowances under the Family Allowances Acts, 1945 and 1952, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament"—

A. of any increase in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section one of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, which is attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) increasing by two shillings the weekly rate of the allowance payable in respect of each child of a family other than the two eldest;
(b) providing that a person shall be treated as a child for the purposes of the said Act of 1945 during any period before he or she attains the age of eighteen years whilst he or she is undergoing full-time instruction in a school or is an apprentice or during any period whilst he or she is under the age of sixteen years and is incapacitated by illness or disability of mind or body both for attendance at a school and for employment;
(c) validating certain marriages for the purposes of family allowances;
(d) making provision with respect to reciprocal arrangements with other countries in connection with family allowances;
(e) authorising a person who has been committed by an order of any court under the Children and Young Persons Act. 1933, or the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, to the care of a local authority to be treated in certain circumstances as included in a family for the purposes of family allowances;

B. of any increase attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under section twenty of the Family Allowances Act, 1945, subsection (1) of section sixty of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, or subsection (1) of section thirty-eight —of the National Insurance Act, 1946.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

7.33 p. m.

Mr. H. A. Marquand: I do not wish to delay the Committee, but I would like to make a remark or two about one passage in the Money


Resolution now before us, where provision is made for
increasing by two shillings the weekly rate of the allowance payable in respect of each child of a family other than the two eldest
Being so very narrowly drawn, that provision confines us entirely within the ambit of the Bill; we could not, under this Resolution, move to increase the 2s. or to pay the allowance, as we would like to do, for the second child as well as the third.
I do not think the Minister will disagree with that interpretation. I only want to make it clear, because it is sometimes misunderstood outside this Committee. We maintain the attitude we expressed on Second Reading, but it will unfortunately not be possible for us to move appropriate Amendments in Committee.

Dr. Horace King: Can the Minister give us any assurance that we shall, under the terms of this Money Resolution, have an opportunity of discussing in Committee some of the points we raised during the Second Reading debate.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): It is not, of course, for me to give any ruling as to what may or may not be in order at various stages of the Bill. So far as the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Middles-

brough, East (Mr. Marquand) is concerned, my first impression leads me to agree with him, though I say that with due respect to the Chair, which must make the rulings on these subjects.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Itchen (Dr. King) raises a more general question, and I am not myself clear which particular provisions he has in mind. This Money Resolution operates mainly in respect of that part of the Bill which deals with the charge on the Exchequer, in respect of which, of course, a Money Resolution is necessary, otherwise, under the Standing Orders, the Standing Committee would not be able to take those Clauses which impose a charge on the Exchequer. It is necessary, therefore, for those Clauses to be covered. As one can see from the framing of it, the Money Resolution is not designed, except in respect of certain limiting matters, to deal with what I might call the National Insurance side, though it has to deal with the charge in the first place, even where the Exchequer will be reimbursed from the Fund, and with the administrative expenses.
Certainly, so far as the generality of the matter is concerned, I should have thought—subject again to the fact that it is not for me—that we should not be involved in any difficulties.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION 15 MAY 1956 AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

7.38 p. m.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The object of this small but, I am afraid, inevitably rather complicated Bill is to give a certain degree of relief to—so far as can be calculated—about 13,000 or 14,000 recipients of workmen's compensation payments, and to provide for that relief by imposing a charge upon the Industrial Injuries Fund.
I am afraid the appearance of this Bill confirms the truth of the old Scriptural reference to the difficulty of putting new wine into old bottles— an analogy which at this hour is perhaps not inappropriate. The difficulty is, of course, that we are dealing with two totally different systems, and we are seeking to supplement payments under the one by imposing a charge on the other. The difficulty which arises from a technical point of view and accounts for the Bill's shape is that, after all, workmen's compensation ended, so far as new cases are concerned, with the coming into force of the Industrial Injuries Act on 5th July, 1948, and that the scheme introduced under the Industrial Injuries Act was completely different in its whole scope and basis from that previously existing under workmen's compensation.
If I may put it like this, workmen's compensation was, in essence, a claim by a workman against an employer— in practice, often against the insurance company, but in form against the employer— and it was assessed very largely on the basis of loss of earnings which resulted from the injury. Industrial injuries are now dealt with under the schemes of social security out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, and they are assessed on the totally different basis of loss of faculty and amenity, with only comparatively secondary provisions taking into account the loss of earnings.
The task of dealing with this matter and providing for the supplementation of

what are sometimes called the old workmen's compensation cases out of the Industrial Injuries Fund has been a considerable one. I would suggest that there is no doubt that we ought to take action in this matter. After all, the date of the accident has, in general, determined whether a man receives his compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or his benefit under the Industrial Injuries Act.
As time has gone on, the amounts payable under the one scheme, certainly in cases of total incapacity, have diverged substantially from those payable under the other. There has been felt to be therefore— I think the feeling has been pretty general— some considerable element of hardship, at any rate in the case of certain of these old workmen's compensation cases, because the payment these men receive is now out of line with what would be received by a man similarly injured since the Industrial Injuries Act came into effect.
I stress that, because I will probably carry the House with me in saying that we ought not to put on the Industrial Injuries Fund— that is to say the contributors to that Fund— a charge in respect of an injury not within the scope of that Fund, except where we are really satisfied that some real hardship or real injustice arises. In other words, we ought not to do this merely to obtain exact symmetry or equality, but only where there is a point of substance
It seemed to the Government in respect of the 13,000 or 14,000 cases of total incapacity that the figures have' now diverged so widely as to amount to some such degree of hardship or injustice. It is, however, true that when we get to the wider sphere of partial disability there are cases where the man is better off under the old scheme than under the new. That is true in the case of the partially disabled on the below-maximum rate. It is also possible within the scheme itself to secure some review of the arrangements, but neither of those arises in the case of total incapacity.
The figures are important. Under the present rates payable to the old workmen's compensation cases the maximum or total rate is 40s. for a single man, 50s. for a married man with pre-accident wife, and 55s. for a married man with


pre-accident wife and child. Even when allowance is made for the fact that under earlier legislation in appropriate cases unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowances under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, can be paid in these workmen's compensation cases, there is still an unfavourable contrast with the full rate of industrial injury benefit at 67s. 6d. a week.
The Bill proposes to pay out of the Industrial Injuries Fund a supplement at the rate of 17s. 6d. per week to these total incapacity cases. This will have the effect, as hon. Members will appreciate, of raising the total receipt— supplement plus workmen's compensation— to 57s. 6d. per week for a single man, to 67s. 6d. for a married man with a pre-accident wife, and to 72s. 6d. for a married man with pre-accident wife and child.
In the course of discussions which I have undertaken in connection with the Bill, I carefully considered the possibility of doing this in another way and simply bringing up the three workmen's compensation rates, 40s., 50s., 55s., to the current industrial injuries rate of 67s. 6d., but after looking at it, I felt that that was the wrong way to proceed. I am bound to admit that I was influenced by the principle, which I have just indicated, that we should not put this charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund, except on a basis of real need and real injustice. If we did it that way, we would put the biggest charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund in the direction where the need is least, that of the single man, and the smallest supplement where the need is greatest, the case of the married man with a child.
It is perfectly true that doing it this way, with a flat supplement of 17s. 6d., we provide that the workmen's compensation case where there is a wife and child will receive in all 5s. more than the Industrial Injuries maximum rate— 72s. 6d. as against 67s. 6d. On the other hand, in the course of nature there are comparatively few of these cases, since such a case must have arisen before July, 1948. It seemed to us that the apparent anomaly was preferable to using the Industrial Injuries Fund to give a bigger supplement where the need was least and a smaller supplement where the need was clearly greater.
The object of the Bill, as I have indicated, is to deal with cases of total incapacity. Clause is designed to give a definition appropriate to the different scheme under which the workmen's compensation is paid. Clause 1 (1) (a) deals with what I may call the ordinary workmen's compensation case, that is of an injury or disease other than pneumoconiosis or byssinosis. It has not proved possible on examination simply to take the classification under the old workmen's compensation Acts. The reason, as the House will appreciate, is that in many of these cases, cases of partial incapacity were in fact paid at the maximum rate, because the loss of earnings was sufficient to enable that to be done.
In most cases, there was no reason for the man or his employer to go through the procedure of the Workmen's Compensation Acts in order to change his category to that of total incapacity. If, therefore, we were to take only the classification of total incapacity under the old Acts, we should in fact be ruling out a certain number of cases classified as partially disabled under the old Acts and never amended, because there was no reason for either party in those days to seek an amended classification, but which would now be deprived of the supplement.
We have therefore sought to introduce the test which we suggest in Clause
1 (1) (a), that is:

".…incapable of work and likely to remain so incapable for a prolonged period.
Perhaps I should say a word about that phrase, which will be familiar to some hon. Members opposite. It is already familiar to the industrial injuries world and has been ruled by the Commissioner to mean approximately six months. It is probably better to use some such expression as that than to name a precise period. If one names a precise period, the adjudicating authorities will be compelled to rule out any case which comes perhaps one day below the precise period. If one provides the sort of period one has in mind indirectly by the use of an expression such as "for a prolonged period," one gets a little more flexibility, but this is just the kind of matter on which it will be very interesting to hear the views of hon. Members, and I know that several hon. Members have a great deal of experience in this subject.
No such difficulty arises in pneumoconiosis and byssinosis cases. Pneumoconiosis cases have a classification, which one can accept, of total incapacity, and at the time of the Workmen's Compensation Acts compensation was awarded for byssinosis only in cases of total incapacity. Finally, in Clause 1 (3) we have made some provision to deal with the case where total incapacity results from two or more industrial accidents, where neither of them has by itself caused the total incapacity but the two together have.
Clause 2 provides for the supplement of 17s. 6d. for cases defined by Clause 1, and the rest of the Bill largely amounts to machinery. As the House will see, we are seeking to use for the administration of the Bill the machinery of the Industrial Injuries system as far as we can. That is a system which is now familiar, not only to my Department and most of the beneficiaries concerned, but also to the trade union movement. It probably provides the best available machinery for administering the supplement. For example, in that way we can use the medical advice which is available under the Industrial Injuries system, although I very much hope that in the large majority of cases it will not be necessary to resort to it. Broadly speaking, these cases will be able to be handled, as under the Industrial Injuries scheme, by the decision of the insurance officer, with appeal, if necessary, to a tribunal and the Commissioner.
As some hon. Members will know, this matter has been discussed for some length of time. The discussions were initiated by my noble Friend, Lord Ingleby, to whom reference was properly made on the Family Allowances and National Insurance Bill. I can tell the House that I know from my own experience how much attention and care the noble Lord gave to this matter. It was, it so happens, the first matter which he and I discussed when I took over from him in my present office shortly before Christmas. I would express gratitude, too, to the Members of this House who have experience of this matter and have given us considerable assistance, and also to the Trades Union Congress, which has given us excellent and helpful advice on what, though comparatively small, is, as the scope of my speech may already perhaps have proved

only too clearly, a somewhat complex matter.
However, the broad purpose is, I think, clear, and will I hope prove acceptable; it is that we should use the Industrial Injuries Fund in order to provide a supplement to those 13,000 or 14,000 men who because, and only because, they draw their support from a workmen's compensation system which was superseded in 1948 have found that the money that they draw from that is not only insufficient for their needs but is out of line with what is drawn by their friends and colleagues who may have suffered an industrial accident a year or two later and, therefore, receive benefit under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. Some of those men, I think, have suffered and are suffering a considerable degree of hardship which we are anxious to relieve.
I cannot, of course, say precisely when it will be possible to do that, because that must depend on the Parliamentary progress of the Bill. I should be rash at this stage, on Second Reading, to give any date for bringing it into effect, but I can assure the House that as soon as reasonably practical after the Bill becomes law I shall take the necessary steps to name the appointed day, as provided in the Bill, to bring it into law, because I am aware—I will repeat this—I am aware, of the very real feeling that exists in many quarters that it is full time something was done to help those men. It is because I believe that this Bill does that, that I move its Second Reading.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Taylor: I would first express my sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in having two Bills on their hands in one day; and I know from experience that they must have been giving much thought to the two Measures for some time before today. The right hon. Gentleman was quite right in what he said about the differences between the systems of the workmen's compensation and the new Industrial Injuries benefit and the difference between the pre-accident and post-accident earnings in the one case and of loss of faculty and so on under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. We are not going into that question tonight or the right or the wrong of either system, but my


views about that have been expressed in the House before, as have those of other hon. Members.
The right hon. Gentleman said, in dealing with the old workmen's compensation cases, that this putting of the financial onus on to the Industrial Injuries Fund does not itself constitute a precedent. I think that that should be borne in mind. Pre-1924 cases were dealt with in that way, and the pneumoconiotic cases were dealt with in that way. No other way has been found to bring additional benefit to these old cases, as they are called, and I have some regrets for this reason, that the employers, whose liability it was before 1948 to carry the burden for the payment of compensation, have up to now completely escaped their liability. The right hon. Gentleman made mention of his predecessor, now Lord Ingleby, and I am glad to know from the statement which he made as recently as 1952 that there has been a change of heart in him, and that something is to be done, as the existence of the Bill indicates, for the old workmen's compensation cases.
We on this side of the House welcome the Bill very much. We are exceedingly pleased that the results of the discussions which the right hon. Gentleman has had with the Trades Union Congress are now embodied in legislative form. Moreover, I and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends appreciate very much indeed that the Minister has made it possible for the Bill to come before us for Second Reading not only in this Session but on this day. I would assure him that we are indeed very anxious to co-operate in giving a speedy passage to this Measure so that the appointed day for the payment of this benefit shall not he long delayed
Since 1948 the old cases, as they are called, have constituted a thorny and very pressing problem. Not only has the right hon. Gentleman had representations made to him but all his predecessors had representations made to them by the Trades Union Congress. Many attempts have been made during the past eight years to find a satisfactory solution of the problem of the old cases, not only the totally disabled but the partially disabled cases as well.
It is proper to place on record that this matter has been very much in the minds of my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the House. In 1953 my hon.

Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) introduced a Private Member's Bill to deal with them, and in 1955 so did my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and in this Session my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) introduced another. The aim and purpose of those three Private Members' Bills was to increase the workmen's compensation benefit not only of the totally disabled but of the partially disabled as well.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware, I know, of what has taken place, but in discussing a Bill like this it is as well to remind ourselves. All the benefits, with one exception, under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act have, I am pleased to say, been considerably increased— except the benefit to the industrial widow under the age of 50. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider that matter in his quieter moments.
What is the position today? As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, the difference between the 100 per cent. totally disabled under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act and the single man under workmen's compensation is 27s. 6d. a week; between him and the married man it is 17s. 6d; and between him and the married man with one child it is 12s. 6d. The proposal in this Bill will go most of the way—leaving out the single man for the moment—to bridge the gap of difference between the Industrial Injury benefit and the workmen's compensation benefit.
Surely, however, it is not surprising, that difference having existed, that the men who were disabled in the pre-war years and during the war have been referred to in this House and outside this House as the forgotten men of the industrial world? The last increase they had was in 1943, when the maximum compensation was raised from 30s. to 40s. for the single man, to 50s. for the married and to 55s. for the married man with one child.
I should be guilty if I concealed my true feelings about the Bill. They are mixed feelings. I sincerely welcome the Bill. I am very pleased about what it does. I frankly confess that at the same time I am disappointed that it is not more comprehensive so as to include the partially injured. I had hoped that even


if the complicated problem of the partially disabled had not been finally resolved— and I hope that we are very much further on the road to a solution than we were eight years ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) introduced the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act— the proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark would have been incorporated, if only to ensure a token payment.
Let us consider the size of the problem. It is true that 45,000 cases are in receipt of weekly compensation payments, but the numbers of the old cases were made up of three types, the totally disabled, the partially disabled and what we called the latent cases. Whilst we have fairly accurate figures for the totally disabled and partially disabled, namely 45,000. my estimate is that if the latent cases are included there must be about 70,000 altogether. The Minister said that the Bill would affect 13,000 or 14,000. Therefore, in relation to the global total the Bill touches only the fringe of the problem.
Those of us who come from the mining areas feel this problem very keenly, because out of the 13,000 totally disabled to whom the Minister referred, 6,000 are to be found in the coal mining areas. I have mentioned the size of the problem to indicate that the Bill deals with only one in every five or six cases.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think that the proposals in the Bill are the final solution and that he has reached the end of the road. I trust that he will continue his negotiations with that very helpful and responsible body in this sphere, the Trades Union Congress, so that a solution can be found to the whole of the problem and the sense of injustice under which the partially disabled are suffering be removed.
I want to refer to the very words to which the Minister referred. We seem to have mutual feelings on the point. They are the words of Clause 1 (1, a) —
… incapable of work and likely to remain so incapable for a prolonged period.
I give as an illustration of the problem to which I should like to refer a case which I know personally and which I believe to be typical of many.
Twenty years ago a man lost his leg in an accident in one of our local pits. He received compensation and then resumed work for a time. He had partial compensation and eventually his post-accident earnings began to increase and he finally became a latent case. A few months ago he had to go into hospital for treatment of the stump. He immediately became entitled to total disablement benefit under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He is still in hospital. If he goes to work again in three months' time will he, having been totally disabled for three months as a result of an accident twenty years ago, nevertheless be deprived of supplement under this Bill?
As I see the position, three conditions must be fulfilled, namely, entitlement to weekly payments, being incapable of work, and the likelihood of remaining incapable of work for a long period. I submit that the third condition is unnecessary and could prove very difficult in a case of the type that I have just quoted. I hope that the Minister will think about this point between now and the Committee stage. I suggest that these words might be excluded, otherwise hardship might be inflicted in certain types of cases.
I suggest further to the Minister that Clause 3 (1, c) relating to medical examination is unnecessary. Certification by the employer's doctor or by a medical referee under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or by both entitles a man to payment of compensation under the Acts. I suggest that that certification is really all that is necessary for the payment of supplementation under the Bill.
The employer has certain rights under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. He can ask a man to undergo examination. If the employer's doctor says that the man is unfit the man is paid, but if the employer's doctor disagrees a ten days' statutory notice is served and the man can apply to go before a medical referee, with whom the decision rests. In the light of those circumstances, it would be a mistake to make a further medical examination a condition of the payment of supplementation. I hope that the Minister will look at that point again.
It would be rather anomalous if the employer's doctor or the medical referee said that the man was totally disabled and he received weekly compensation


payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts while, for the purposes of this Bill, he would not be regarded as totally disabled and would not receive the supplementation. If, however, the principle of medical examination is retained, who will conduct the medical examination? Will the medical boards under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act be responsible—for in that case there must be more than one doctor—or will it be the responsibility of doctors now employed for National Insurance purposes? Examination for those purposes requires only one doctor.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It may save time if I remind the hon. Gentleman that in these matters we are intending to use the Industrial Injuries machinery.

Mr. Taylor: So there will be two doctors and not one, as constituted under the Industrial Injuries Act. I hope that the Minister will look at this point in this type of case in view of the fact that total disablement payment to the workman's compensation is only paid on the basis of medical certification.

Mr. J. T. Price: 1 know that my hon. Friend is trying to deal with a very complex question in the shortest possible time, but title to benefit derives also from an award by a county court judge where medical evidence is in dispute, or from a recorded agreement under Section 12 of the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

Mr. Taylor: I fully accept that, but I was trying to take the general run of cases in which it is for the medical referee to decide if there is a dispute between the parties.
Finally, on administration, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman where this benefit wil be paid? The present position, of course, is that it is paid at the employer's premises. Will it be paid there with the total disablement payment or will it be paid through the Post Office by postal draft, as is disablement benefit for industrial injuries?
With the reservations which I have mentioned, I am hoping that the Minister will be able to give us reassuring words on the two main points which I have made, We on this side of the House

very heartily support the Bill for what it contains, but we are disappointed because of its omissions concerning the partially disabled, and we hope that the question of the appointed day will receive very early and serious consideration.

8.12 p. m.

Mr. E. Partridge: I approach this matter in a mood rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor). I am probably like him in one respect, in that when I have something given to me, like Oliver Twist, I want more. There is no harm in that. Nevertheless, I think one should take a broad view of the whole situation, and I imagine that it is a truism that, since the beginning of time, man has found his greatest happiness in the task that lies to his hands and the greatest contentment in the task well done. Naturally that is not his only reward, because although we cannot live by bread alone, we do need the bread and the wherewithal with which to buy it.
Unfortunately, there may come a period in our lives— indeed it happens to most of us— when by accident or disease we cannot pursue our occupation, and then we suffer a double blow. In the first place, we lose the joy of working, which 1 honestly believe is a real joy to the majority of the people of this country, and there is also the anxiety of loss of income. Although it is not possible to ward off the former, we can do and have done a great deal to remedy the latter.
In the days of long ago, much was achieved by charitable efforts and voluntary institutions, but under those circumstances there were many more deserving cases which did not get the help they needed, so it was obviously right that assistance should come in a more methodical way and on a more permanent basis. I think that I can speak for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say that we are happy to see that measures have been taken from time to time, particularly in the field of workmen's compensation, which have had the effect of ensuring that, when people are injured or struck down by disease in the course of their employment, a sum of money is provided which to an extent ensures their freedom from want.
We have seen a succession of Workmen's Compensation Acts brought before this House, each one of which, I think it will be agreed, has been better than the one which preceded it. I am quite sure that I carry the House with me when I say that the greatest step forward was the Industrial Injuries, Act, 1948—

Mr. James Griffiths: The 1946 Act.

Mr. Taylor: In a way the hon. Member is right.

Mr. Partridge: I am sorry, I mixed the dates. It was by that Act that the responsibility for the care of the injured was assumed by the State and was based on an insurance scheme. This is where I come to the point which I think the hon. Member for Mansfield overlooked, because if we say that it is an insurance scheme, it presupposes, and indeed it is stated in the Act, that there is a self-supporting insurance fund. This Fund up to March, 1955, had, I think, accumulated £ 123 million. I have not the figures since that date, but they have been growing steadily since then.

Mr. Taylor: The point I was trying to make was that the proposals in this Bill, as under other legislation, transfer the liability of the employers to the Insurance Fund.

Mr. Partridge: I was coming to that point, which I had hoped my right hon. Friend would deal with, and with which hon. Members opposite have not dealt. It is a matter which causes me some little perplexity, although not anxiety, because I am not quite sure how this is to happen.
The Government Actuary in the quinquennial review, after five years of the operation of the Act, which was in 1948, said that the Fund would not grow at a sufficient rate on the then contributions from employers and workmen with the Exchequer grant and interest on the investments of the Insurance Fund to ensure that the then rates of benefit would be covered, and would certainly not take care of the full charge in respect of disablement pensioners and the widows' benefits which is bound to develop and which has been envisaged. The Government Actuary stated then that the Fund would, by those recommendations— and I think that it was 1 d. extra on the contributions and an additional

Exchequer grant amounting in all to £ 10 million a year— permit the Fund to grow to a level of £ 435 million.
In that way the Fund would be stabilised and would be able to take care of all the calls upon it. According to my information, however, those recommendations have not yet been implemented so that, although the Fund is still increasing, according to the Government Actuary in 10 years' time it will begin to fail and eventually will be extinguished unless some such action as he recommended is taken.
So the Fund, on the rates then in operation, was not building up to the figure that it should have reached, and now we are making an inroad into that Fund to the extent of the amount as prescribed in Clause 2 of the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not have brought a Bill before this House which made a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund unless he was sure that the Fund could stand it and that in due time the recommendations of the Government Actuary would be implemented. So it is with confidence that we can consider, as the Minister obviously has done, that the time has arrived when we can begin to deal more generously with those injured prior to 5th July, 1948, and who, because they continue to draw compensation under the old Act, do not come under the new system of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act.
I consider that to be a great step forward. The hon. Gentleman said that this is not the end of the road. I hope that we shall never get to the end of the road but that, as time goes on, we shall be able to find means of improving these social services which are a real benefit to the people who suffer in industry.
When we are considering the progress of our social legislation, we should remember that in 1953 it was firmly established that the full sickness benefit or the unemployability benefit should be payable to the so-called old cases, which was a new and good departure. This supplementary benefit of 17s. 6d. is in addition to the full sickness benefit and the unemployability supplement —

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right about it being in addition to sickness benefit, but not sickness benefit and unemployability supplement.

Mr. Partridge: I thought I said "and/or". I meant sickness benefit or the unemployability supplement. It is in addition to the maximum workmen's compensation which will continue to be paid.
I do not want to go into the various points which will be discussed in Committee when we try to make this a better Bill. We can always do that because no Bill is perfect on Second Reading; so I have no doubt that we shall improve this one. I regard the Bill as a great step forward —

Mr. Taylor: So do we.

Mr. Partridge: Yes, but I wanted to make that point. It is another great step forward in the efforts of the community to bring such comfort as we can to those of our less fortunate brethren, even though they number only between 13,000 and 14,000. It is because this Bill does so, and because we can continue to be Oliver Twists, looking forward to more to come, that I honestly congratulate the Minister on the care and attention which he has given to bringing this Measure before us. I commend it to the House and hope, with the hon. Member for Mansfield, that it will have a fairly quick passage through. the House so that the benefits, admittedly limited, will become payable at the earliest moment.

8.25 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: Like the hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), I welcome this Bill, but only as far as it goes. I should have been much happier this evening if the Bill had covered not only those totally disabled but also those who are partially disabled. In a constituency such as mine, in which there are thousands of miners and others working in heavy industry, I have a number of those 13,000 or 14,000 cases covered by this Bill.
Each time there was an increase in the Industrial Injuries benefit I received letters from those who were receiving payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Those letters always asked me why was it that an increase was given to men who already received a greater weekly income than those receiving com-

pensation. Because of those many representations, when I was fortunate in the Ballot last year for a Private Member's Bill, I introduced a Bill to cover not only the totally disabled but also the partially disabled. I had experience of a previous Private Member's Bill for which I had received the greatest support from a Minister.
Because of that, I decided that I would try to get the support of the previous Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. I have a letter in which he tells me that he could not undertake to facilitate a Measure of this sort. I congratulate the new Minister. When he was appointed to his office he gave a great deal of consideration to the matter, and he has now introduced a Measure which will bring help to the 13,000–14.000 men, upon which I congratulate him. I hope that before the Bill reaches the Statute Book—we want it to do that Its quickly as possible—the Minister, who has shown that he has a more open mind than his predecessor, will be able to do something for the partially disabled also
Both the Minister and the hon. Member for Battersea, South have spoken about the money coming from the Industrial Injuries Fund. It is right that that should be stressed. It is of the greatest importance that we should safeguard the future of the Fund for people who will perhaps live very much longer than we shall. It is right that we in the House of Commons should show ourselves to be responsible people.
If some other way could be found of financing the provisions in the Bill, and further provisions which I hope will be incorporated in this Bill or a subsquent Measure, I am certain that it would be approved by my hon. Friends. I should like to find some way of putting the liability fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the people who ought to carry it, the former employers of the disabled workmen, or if we look to those who provide the money, the insurance companies to whom the employers paid premiums to cover their workmen. My hon. Friends and I would rather that happened than that we had to use money from the Industrial Injuries Fund which was never meant for this purpose.

Mr. Partridge: If the insurance companies were called upon to shoulder a liability for which they had not budgeted,


it would mean that this would be at the expense of the benefits anticipated by other policy holders. The insurance companies could not provide the extra money from their own funds; it would have to come from the insurance funds which they are administering on behalf of their policy holders.

Miss Herbison: I would answer that with two points. First, these workmen are really the liability of the insurance companies.

Mr. Tom Brown: That is perfectly true.

Miss Herbison: Secondly, I understand that there are very huge profits in some forms of insurance. I still feel that the insurance companies could carry the liability without interfering with the benefits rightly anticipated by people who are making provision for themselves privately through insurance. What I cannot see is how the House can make the insurance companies carry the liability.
Perhaps there is another way whereby the Fund could be safeguarded. I have alway felt that it is the responsibility of Governments to cut away from our life as much suffering as possible. If we accept that, the Government might, instead of turning to the Industrial Injuries Fund, have decided that this was a liability which should be financed by the Treasury. My purpose in making these remarks has been to show that the Opposition are just as concerned about the Industrial Injuries Fund and its future as are hon. Gentlemen opposite, which I think is accepted.
Under the Bill, a man who is totally disabled and is married will be given the same weekly amount as the married man under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, but that will not happen to the single man. At present, the single man receives £ 2 if he has full compensation. With the flat increase of 17s. 6d. he will receive £ 2 17s. 6d. The single man who has been disabled since 1928 today receives £ 3 7s. 6d. In other words, even after the passing of the Bill, the single man about whom I am talking will still be 10s. per week worse off than the single man receiving benefit under the Industrial Injuries Scheme.
I am sorry that when he was dealing with the totally disabled, whether married

or single, the Minister did not decide to iron out all the injustices and to give them all exactly the same, no matter when their accident happened or whether their industrial disease was contracted before 5th July, 1948, or afterwards. I hope that in Committee we will put down an Amendment to deal with this. I know about the Money Resolution, but we remember the other recent Bill on which the Minister came forward with two further Money Resolutions because the justice of the case had been made so clear.

Mr. Partridge: I might remind the hon. Lady that my right hon. Friend was roundly condemned for it.

Miss Herbison: I am certain that in this case we would never dream of condemning a Minister who had the courage to come forward and say, "I have made a mistake and I shall give to all the totally disabled the same weekly benefit, no matter when their accident occurred."
There is another provision which 1 welcome in the Bill. There are what we term the "time-barred pneumoconiotics". Those who are totally disabled now receive 40s. a week. They are to receive the additional 17s. 6d. Even so, they will still be getting less than the person who receives industrial injury benefit. Many of the partially disabled are really badly off, and I am very worried indeed that nothing has been done for them in the Bill.
I realise the great difficulties of dealing with this category of disabled people. When trying to work out the provisions for my Private Member's Bill, we came up against many of the difficulties that the Minister must have faced. We thought that rough justice might be done if 10s. a week was paid to the partially disabled. I hope that the Minister has not quite closed his mind and that he will give further consideration to those who are partially disabled.
There are pre-1948 cases in my constituency to whom even a 10s. a week increase would be a great help. Those who are partially disabled by pneumoconiosis— the time-barred cases— today receive only 20s. a week. Under the Bill, there is not a penny increase for them. We who represent mining constituencies in particular and who meet these people every weekend in our constituencies feel that if anything at all can


be done to help them, in spite of all the difficulties that might present themselves in the process, we must try to overcome the difficulties. Those are a few of the things which I criticise in the Bill.
There is only one further point I want to make about the partially disabled. Most of those covered by the Bill, and certainly most of the partially disabled, are living in mining villages or industrial areas. Very often light work simply is not available for them. There is no question, therefore, of anyone who is partially disabled and in receipt of partial compensation being able to do a job of work. Many of those who are partially disabled— certainly those whom I know bestx2014; are receiving their low figure of compensation and can find no work whatever. If matters go on as they are in my area, these people will have no hope fo finding a job for the rest of their lives.
These problems are very serious. I do not wish the Minister to think that I am criticising him. I consider that he has made an excellent beginning, and I hope that during our discussions in Committee we shall be able to make the improvements which I feel sure all hon. Members on this side of the House desire.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: Any Measure which seeks to improve the lot of the disabled is always welcomed in this House and in the country. From the speeches which have already been delivered, I feel sure that this Bill, which provides for increases in the rates of compensation for the totally disabled, will receive general approval. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), I congratulate the Minister on his expedition in bringing forward this Bill. We are not completely satisfied with it, but in so far as it provides for the worst type of cases, we welcome it; and I am glad that, in producing this Measure, the right hon. Gentleman has demonstrated that these totally disabled men have not been forgotten.
We have been reminded that the men who will be affected by the provisions of this Bill have received no increase in their rates of compensation since 1943. Hon. Members on this side of the House, by attempting to introduce Private

Member's Bills and in other ways, have raised the question on a number of occasions. But not until now, after all these years, have we had recognition for what have been described as the "forgotten men." The Minister will have discovered already that, while we support the Bill, we are not over enthusiastic about it. We have misgivings. The right hon. Gentleman said that he is dealing with 13,000 totally disabled men, but there are at least another 35,000 men who are receiving compensation on the basis of partial incapacity.
Many of these men are seriously disabled. While they are not in the category which can be described as totally incapacitated, many are suffering from serious disablement. They include skilled engineers and craftsmen who, as a result of injury or disease, have been robbed of the fruits of their skill. Some are fortunate if they can obtain a job in Remploy, or work of a lower category than that to which their skill would entitle them. All their skill and apprenticeship has gone by the board. When these men examine the provisions of this Bill, they will say, "There is nothing for me. This Bill is confined strictly to the worst type of case, the man who cannot work at all. But I have been robbed of earning capacity which is the basis of the workmen's compensation legislation."
Among those men are piecework colliers who now find themselves picking slag on the screes, or doing a light job. They may have lost a weekly wage of £ 8 or £ 10. Or it may be that a skilled engine driver is obliged to take on the job of a porter or a ticket collector. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of such men who could be classified as seriously disabled. There are the miners suffering from pneumoconiosis. Many of them may have not received a certificate of total incapacity, but are declared to be in the moderately advanced stage of pneumoconiosis.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman or any hon. Member opposite has seen some of these men in a moderately advanced stage of pneumoconiosis. They puff and blow and can hardly walk, but they are regarded as being fit to do some small light work, a sitting-down job, if they can get it. 1 can tell the right hon. Gentleman that in South Wales there are at least 2,000 or 3,000 of those men unemployed and


receiving this partially disabled rate. There is nothing in this Bill for them at all. By Ieaving them out a great sence of injustice will be created.
My hon. Friend referred to the fact that the Private Member's Bill she introduced did at least provide for the 10s. a week increase as a flat rate. I cannot understand the attitude of the Government to social insurance. These improvements are always made in a piecemeal sort of way. There is no comprehensive review and no attempt to deal with all the aspects of the problem but to deal with it stage by stage. In all probability we shall have another Bill after this one. We shall have another Bill in six or 12 months' time, and perhaps another after that. We shall get a series of Acts of Parliament which are difficult to administer, causing confusion to trade union officials who have to deal with the problem and despair among the men affected because they will not fully understand the implications of all those various Acts.
It would have been far better if the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward a Measure dealing with the whole aspect of men receiving workmen's compensation. By reason of the fact that he has not done so, I venture to predict that at every trade union meeting this question of the partially disabled will be debated. The Minister will get resolutions sent to him and he will be asked to meet the Trades Union Congress again to go into the question. I join with my hon. Friends who have asked the right hon. Gentleman to see that when we reach Committee stage he will reconsider this question and at least give some thought to the proposals which have been made in the House this evening and in the Bills introduced as Private Members' Bills to increase the 10s. a week as a flat rate for the partially disabled.
Another aspect of the problem rather disturbs me. The 17s. 6d. increase in the rate is to apply to the totally disabled. It will increase the ceiling from £ 2 10s. to £3 7s. 6d. a week, which will bring the recipients on to a similar basis to those receiving benefit under the industrial injuries legislation. From the year 1897, Compensation Acts have provided that if the maximum rate is increased that is also to apply to the partially disabled.
Under the present Workmen's Compensation Acts a totally disabled man receives the maximum rate of £ 2 10s., and the man who is partially disabled, if the difference in earnings warrants it, can also receive £2 10s. a week. There are many whose pre-accident earnings were £ 10, £ 12 or £ 14 a week who now earn only £ 7 or £ 8 a week. The two-thirds of the difference will entitle them to a maximum of £ 2 10s. a week—in other words, such a man would receive the same amount as the man who is totally disabled. That paragraph applied also under the Act of 1906, where the amount for the partially disabled could rise to 35s. if there were a sufficient difference between the post and pre-accident earnings. The right hon. Gentleman is creating an anomaly by increasing the ceiling to £3 7s. 6d. but, in the case of the partially incapacitated, restricting the amount to a maximum of £ 2 10s
Apart from this injustice, it is going to create confusion. We shall have one man whose compensation for total disablement amounts to £ 3 7s. 6d. a week while the seriously disabled man finds that his maximum is £ 2 10s, a week. A different principle is now being applied as far as the Workmen's Compensation Acts are concerned. I know it will be said, "What about those not entitled to the maximum partial disablement rate who are only receiving 5s. or 10s. a week?" The Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North and of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Deer) provided for a payment of 10s. a week to the partially disabled which would have been some compensation for men deprived of their full earning capacity.
I do not think there is anything worse than to see men who have lost a limb and who are suffering a serious incapacity being deprived of skilful employment. They may be skilled engineers, skilled miners or skilled technicians who acquired their skill over the years and who lost it and who are now without any recompense under this Bill.
Apart from those in receipt of partial compensation, I wish to refer to another class of individual whose case we on this side of the House have raised on several occasions, but for whom no provision is made in the Bill. I refer to those who under the Workmen's Compensation


Acts have been compelled to commute their claim for weekly compensation. I am not referring to those who came to a mutual arrangement with their employers or insurance company to commute their weekly compensation, although many a story could be told of insurance companies persuading men, as a result of negotiation, to accept small sums in total settlement.
I am concerned with the men who have been compelled to commute their claim for a weekly payment because the colliery company or the other employers for whom they were working had gone into liquidation. The compensation paid in such cases was not commensurate with the weekly payment, but it was the best that many of these men could obtain. I have several such men in my constituency, some of them blinded by explosions. The company for which they worked went into liquidation and they were paid off with £ 50, £ 60, £ 70 or £ 100 at most, which represented anything from 3d. to 6d. in the £ when compared with the weekly compensation to which they were entitled. These men did not commute their weekly payments by any mutual arrangement; they were compelled to commute them. The liquidator was called in and the assets available represented only 3d. or 6d. in the £.
I ask the Minister to give consideration to cases where men have been compelled to settle for a lump sum as a result of the employer going into liquidation. Fortunately, their number is limited because many of them have since died, but some cases still exist. As I say, I have men in my constituency who were blinded as a result of explosions and who had to settle for a small lump sum as a result of liquidation.
I fully recognise the difficulty of the Minister in trying to bring these old compensation cases into line with industrial injuries cases. We are here dealing with two Acts of Parliament and with two classes of disabled men, but I should have thought that it would have been Government policy to try to marry those two Acts. There would be great satisfaction if, as far as possible, that were done. That should be the policy
There are these various rates of compensation decided on different bases. I have already referred to the fact that, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts,

the man is compensated on the basis of earning capacity, which has little regard for the nature of his disability. The basis is what he has lost financially and he gets two-thirds of the difference between the pre-and post-accident rates. Under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, the basis is loss of faculty, which is a very excellent premise or foundation on which men are compensated. That basis has regard not to their financial position but to their medical condition. In addition, of course, they get hardship allowance.
There are many men today who are partially incapacitated and who, under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, do not get an amount equiyalent to that which those others receive under the Industrial Injuries Act. However difficult the task, I feel that it should be the right hon. Gentleman's policy to bring the payments to those partially-disabled men nearer to the level of payments made under the Industrial Injuries Act. We are here dealing with an Act, the financial effect of which grows less and less. We know the extent of the liability. This is not like the Industrial Accidents Act where new cases are being thrown upon the Fund all the time. The number of compensation men is known, and as a certain number are dying year by year this liability grows less and less. That very important factor may help the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position.
As I have already intimated, we are very pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward this Measure. It will assist the worst cases, but it certainly leaves out 35,000 partially-disabled men. Those men are not covered by this Bill and, as a result, there will be 35,000 very disgruntled and dissatisfied workers. I want to make a special plea to the Minister to reconsider the position of these men. For the life of me I cannot understand why they are left out.
What is the difficulty of paying 10s. a week as a flat rate to these men? Is it a financial difficulty? On this side we have calculated that the amount involved would be £ ½ million for the first year. No one would grudge that. We feel that that is a responsibility of the Exchequer. The men of whom I am speaking made their contribution to industry— and here


I refer particularly to the mining industry. The men who worked in the mines years ago helped this nation. Surely it is not much to ask £ ½ million from the Exchequer to help them.
If the Exchequer cannot deal with it, then representations can be made to the employers. Reference has already been made to the employers, whose liability this really is. They are the people who are responsible, but I hope that the Government will confess that they failed to get the employers or the insurance companies to meet one penny of this liability. That is a shame and a scandal. Having failed to get the employers to deal with it, the Government should meet these claims out of the Industrial Injuries Fund. The present provisions would not be possible had it not been for that Fund. It is because we have that Fund that the right hon. Gentleman is today able to do what he is doing by this Bill
I plead with him to look again at this problem of the partially disabled, and at least to remove the anomaly of the position whereby this 17s. 6d. is not added to the maximum payment to the partially-disabled where the earnings warrant it. I hope that the Minister will at least do what was done under the 1897, the 1906 and the 1925 Acts. I hope that he will make the £ 3 7s. 6d. the basis for all payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I observe that a number of hon. Members opposite who are experts on this subject have for the last five minutes been looking most anxiously at their colleague the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who has taken so long to make his speech. I promise that I shall speak for only two or three minutes.
I was brought up in a mining area, and I remember how important workmen's compensation was fifty years ago to people who had the misfortune to lose the breadwinner through an accident in the pits. Anything that my right hon. Friend can do to help remove injustices, even in a small number of cases, will be very welcome on both sides of the House. Therefore, I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on it.
The hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B Taylor) said that while he was glad

that these 14,000 men were covered by the Bill, he calculated that there were 70,000 cases in all which ought to be dealt with. I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he accepts that figure. If so, what would it cost to bring the other 56,000 into benefit? Can it be done? I was taught to be grateful for small mercies, and therefore I will thank him for what he is doing already for those who have suffered, but I should like to know whether it is possible to do something for those who feel they have been left out.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) has left the Chamber. She made a point to which 1 should like to refer. She said that she felt that the liability ought to be put upon the shoulders of those who are really responsible, and in this connection she referred to former employers and insurance companies. I think I agree with her in a way; but that is only half the story. That is a matter only of national bookkeeping. Hon. Members must face the fact that if we are, as I think we ought as a nation, to look after more generously those who are unfortunate, we shall not do it merely by bookkeeping.
As I have said on many occasions before, we shall only do it out of the increased wealth that we create by greater productivity. Whether the burden is put on the Treasury, which will lead to greater taxation; whether the liability is put on the previous employers— although how that can be done with companies which have gone bankrupt I do not know; or whether it is put on to the insurance companies, that would merely be a little bit of national bookkeeping, transferring from one account to another.
If we are going to do what we should for the unfortunate— and this is only one small aspect of a great national problem — we can only do it, as my right hon Friend is so well aware, out of the increased wealth that we create. We shall not do it merely by legislation. We should get into the minds of both sides of industry that if we are to look after our people as we would like to, we have got to put our heads and our muscles into the task, as well as our hearts.
I welcome the Bill. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the step he has taken. I hope that he will be able to do


something for the 56,000 who, it is claimed, are not covered by this Bill, and I hope that before we part with the Bill my right hon. Friend will tell us what it will cost to deal with these people and, if it is not too much. I hope he will deal with them.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Tom Brown: I cannot follow the philosophy of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), but there is one thing I did appreciate in the course of his speech—that he had sympathy for injured workmen. As to the liability, I believe— whether the hon. Gentleman believes it or not— that the liability for these men whose cases we are discussing under this Measure ought to rest upon the people who are liable.
Let it not go forth from this House that no attempt was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) to place that responsibility where it belonged. He made an attempt, after the passing of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, to establish with the insurance companies and the indemnity companies a global figure which would redeem the liability resting upon them. We ought, therefore, to say that an attempt was made during that period. My right hon. Friend had the patience of Job, and he manifested the wisdom of Solomon in trying to get a figure fixed so that the liability for injured workmen should rest where it ought to rest.
Before I turn to deal with the matter of compensation under the Bill, I should like to put one or two questions. Like my hon. Friends the Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor), the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), and the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), I too must express profound regret that this Bill does not contain any reference to the partial compensation case. I want to add my plea to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North, that the Minister should at a very early date bring forward a Bill to deal with those partial compensation cases.
What are we to understand by the expression "prolonged period" in Clause 1, page 1, line 12? I am not quite sure that we can accept that wording; a "prolonged period" may mean six months in one person's estimation and may mean twelve months in someone else's estima-

tion. We should have not a fixed date but a clear definition of what is meant by "incapable of work" for a prolonged period.'

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) was in the Chamber when I moved the Second Reading. If he was, he will recall that I did indicate that there had been a number of decisions by the Commissioner construing these words in other legislation as meaning about six months.

Mr. T. Brown: Six months is rather a long period, as we understand it in what I may call pit language. If it is six months, then six months it will be; but I should like a much clearer definition in the Bill itself.
My other question relates to the pre-1924 cases, and I wish to know whether all those men who are now in receipt of full compensation for total incapacity will receive this 17s. 6d. increase. That is very important. I do not know whether the Minister realises that many of them are now in receipt of ld. a week. Many of them have established and kept their claims green— speaking now in ordinary language, as we understand it in the mining areas— and in some cases they have a declaration of liability which carries nothing. In other cases a penny a week is paid every four weeks in order to keep the memory of the accident green. Will such cases be entitled to receive compensation?
I want next to deal with cases which are designated "odd lots" The Minister and those who come from mining areas will know what I mean by "odd lot" It is regrettable that a man who has sustained an accident which renders him totally incapacitated should be designated an "odd lot". These "odd lots" are forgotten men. Will the increases in the Bill be applicable to them?
The Minister referred to medical boards now operating under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. I suggest that medical boards which have to determine many of the questions arising from the operation of the Bill should consist of medical men from industrial areas. That would be a step in the right direction. We are now finding— and I say this with the greatest respect for the medical profession


—that some of the medical boards which have to assess the loss of faculty of an injured workman come from seaport towns and have no knowledge of industry, and cannot be expected to have. That is something which I hope the Minister will consider.
With certain reservations, we support the Bill. As it proceeds through Committee, we shall attempt to improve it, and I hope that a degree of amiability and reasonableness will be manifested by the Minister and his Department when we put forward Amendments. This is the 64th compensation Bill to be introduced since Lord Campbell's Fatal Accident Act reached the Statute Book in 1846. That was the first Act of Parliament to declare that compensation should be paid for fatal accidents.
My experience of dealing with compensation cases is that not one of the 63 Acts of Parliament which deal with compensation has ever faced up to the realities of compensation in industry. I challenge anyone to say that compensation legislation in the past has given the injured workman or workwoman the compensation to which he or she has been entitled. It has always fallen far short. When I went to school we used to gather in the playground and sing the song:
Here we are again, happy as can be.
Tonight we are here trying to bring some little happiness in the social and economic conditions of injured men and women in industry.
I have said before and I now repeat with greater emphasis that so long as we have wars, we shall have sick and wounded men: so long as we have industries we shall have men and women broken and bruised upon the wheels of industry, some incapacitated for the rest of their lives, as are those men who will benefit by the Bill. Others are incapacitated for long periods, "prolonged" periods as the Bill says; others for shorter periods; but whether the incapacity is for a long or short period it is the task of this House and of the responsible Minister to see to it that those who have the misfortune to meet with accidents shall be protected against the social, economic, physical and mental consequences which follow accidents—and many there are, as figures prove.
I may be departing into idealism when I say that for a long number of years, having the experience I have been fortunate to have in this matter of compensation, I have been possessed by the hope that one day there would come into our midst, a statesman, a Minister, who would tackle the question as it should be tackled, a man possessing a high degree of courage and profound humanitarianism, with a lofty and noble conception of the value of human life and limb.
I have said many times, and I repeat, that no man, however clever he may be as a mathematician, can determine in terms of £s. d. the value of human life or human limb. I challenge any man to do so. I have myself tried to do so. How difficult I have found it. We have travelled a long, hard road, and we have failed to find such a man. I am not saying that the present Minister is lacking in the spirit of humanitarianism: but I have longed for the time when there would come into our midst such an individual.
In my long experience of this kind of social service I have not been, and I am not, unmindful of the great work and of the success which has attended the efforts of men who, ever since 1897 until the present time, have struggled in so many ways to secure adequate payments for compensation for industrially injured workmen. I do not want to be misunderstood, but I must say that we have not yet done all we could have done.
History records the fact, as has been indicated by previous speakers, that every now and again the question of some improvement in the rates of compensation paid to injured workmen is brought up. It is brought before us in Government Measures such as the one now before the House. Private Members, when fortunate in the Ballot, have chosen to bring forward Bills specifying improvements and figures for workmen's compensation rates.
Now here we are again seeking tonight, through the medium of this Bill, to bring about further improvements. We all welcome them. The Bill, with all its shortcomings, we welcome because it will bring some little relief to those who have been waiting patiently and long for that relief. People in non-mining areas from


time to time ask the question which has been put to me many times—why is it that miners' M. P. s are always trying to improve compensation rates? The reason why we are so enthusiatic about it is obvious, because of the high incidence of accidents in the mining industry.
The Bill will deal with men injured not only in two decades but in three. I would mention the number of men injured and killed in the decade before the First World War. These figures will indicate the magnitude of the problem that confronts us. In the ten years, 1928 to 1937, following the First World War, 1,602,496 men and boys were killed, injured or disabled by accident or industrial disease in British mining.
It may be easier to realise the terrible consequences of the sorrow, physical pain and mental agony if I say that in the ten years preceding the First World War 18 miners were killed and 3,000 injured every working week. As we are directing our minds to what we ought to do, let us try and visualise the 1½ million who have been injured and have suffered. They are a vast concourse of people who would take a long time to pass us if they marched in procession. Many of them would be in grievous pain, and the sound of their passing would equal that of the moaning wind.
During the ten years following the Second World War, the total number of miners killed was 4,802, and there were 2,089,935 reported accidents. I speak from the depths of my heart, and I want the House to try to visualise the great human tragedy that these figures represent— to picture the physical suffering and mental agony which have been the lot of these men and their families. And not one of them has received adequate compensation. Like so many of my colleagues who have spent many years in dealing with compensation cases, I am looking forward again with the strong hope that one day compensation will be paid not only for the loss of faculty but for physical suffering and mental agony. I know that that is a far-reaching idea but, let the House mark my words, it will come.
I hope that the House will permit me to quote one of the many cases that have come to my notice. It is that of a man who over a period of six years had 22

amputations arising from one accident. Every finger of both hands was amputated, and then he had to have both hands taken off, and the big toes on both feet amputated. What physical pain and mental agony must have been endured by that unfortunate man.
I have in my hand a photograph of eight brothers who are all mine workers. Seven of them have suffered accidents and misfortunes in the pits, and not one of them has received adequate compensation. As the Act was drawn, they were denied that right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, when the colliery closed down on 3rd February, 1937, these men failed to obtain the compensation to which they were entitled. What a tragedy in human life. I have in my constituency unfortunate men who were injured before 1934 and who today are receiving £1 0s. 10d. full compensation. They have had to go to the National Assistance Board to eke out a livelihood.
What a tragedy in a civilised country if men who, after being injured in producing the products which the nation needs, should be compelled to have recourse to National Assistance because of the inadequacy of the compensation paid to them. Therefore, I express the hope that in the very near future a realistic view will be taken of the subject of compensation and all its implications. Never let it be said that this honourable House failed to do its duty to those who toil and who give to the nation the products which are so essential to the maintenance of our economic life.
Whether a man or a woman works in the mines or the mills or the engineering shops or the steel works, our task as a legislative assembly is to afford protection to that man or woman. I will not go into the question of the size of the problem. Cases have been mentioned, and 1 could mention many more. I say that in the very near future, if we do that which is right— and we are expected to do that which is right— we shall have to rewrite the values of our people engaged in industry. The values have been fixed too low, and they are too low now. Whatever the wages may be, whatever the conditions may be for the men and women in industry, those conditions will have to include adequate compensation if they are unfortunately overtaken by accidents.
Therefore, 1 welcome the Bill for the small provision that it makes for these unfortunate men, and so far as we on this side of the House can do so, we shall give it a speedy passage through its Committee and remaining stages.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sure that no one could listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) in a debate such as this without being very moved and very touched. Those of us who, like him, have spent our lives in the mining areas know that all the sentiments he has uttered are perfectly true. It is a substantial reflection upon our modern society and our social consciousness, which is supposed to be so well-developed, that in the year 1956 we should have to try to get a greater measure of justice for people who have been denied justice in some cases for well over thirty years.
This Bill is naturally welcome because it gives some redress to 15,000 people, but, as has been indicated, there are some 30,000 or 40,000 people who will obtain no benefit and will be still suffering substantial and grave injustice.
I had staying with me last week a man who had to leave the mines in 1931. He had not been away from home for over thirty years. He had not been able to go away from home because he was a victim of pneumoconiosis. Everyone who has seen these cases knows that a man is constantly coughing, hacking and spitting, and this man told me that it would be disturbing and embarrassing to him to go through that ordeal in front of my family. However, I told him that I had two brothers in a similar state who coughed and spat and spluttered, who never knew what it was to get a full night's rest, and who, if they had two hours' sleep, felt very fortunate.
This man, who came out of the pits in 1931, was judged to have pneumoconiosis in the year 1955. For 25 years he has been gasping for breath, for 25 years he has been unable to follow any normal occupation. It was not until he had his third board, twenty-five years later, that it was agreed that he had partial pneumoconiosis and, as my hon. Friend has indicated, he gets the princely sum of £1

a week. He was denied anything for all those years, and this Bill will give him nothing.
I make no bones about it, 1 get sick to death in this House about these things. Whenever we estimate the cost of something that will bring relief to those who are injured, sick or poor, every penny is counted, every penny is weighed and measured. To give justice to the 35,000 left outside the Bill would cost hardly more than one bomber. If we wanted another thousand bombers, the money would be found.
Why cannot we get Ministers of Pensions and National Insurance who are prepared to stand up in their Department with the same courage and tenacity and determination with which air commodores and generals and admirals stand up in their Departments? They never go short. Their demands are always met. Some day, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince said, we shall have a Minister who will stand up in the Cabinet for the maimed and the injured and the sick and the aged with the same determination with which the Service Ministers obviously stand up in their Departments.
The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who has departed from the Chamber, wanted to know where the money was to come from. He was very concerned about the cost. Half the men on partial compensation are victims of the mining industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ince said. The hon. Member for Louth, with whose presence we are no longer graced, said we could not juggle with the figures in the balance sheet, and that if we were to do anything for these people we must increase production.
I think we could juggle with the figures in the balance sheet. I do not think that there would be anything wrong in taking £ 2 million off the compensation for the coal owners. That would give these people adequate compensation and justice. This is the moral obligation of the coal owners, because those men are suffering from disability today because they hewed coal at too cheap a price for the old coal owners. So, if the hon. Member for Louth wants these people to have the measure of justice to which they are entitled, I hope that he will join with us on the Committee stage in trying to bring these people within the scope of the Bill.
There is no doubt that there have been substantial improvements. For example, a fortnight ago my nephew, who had had his finger badly smashed in the mine, returned to work after six or eight weeks and received £45 for disfigurement. One of my brothers said to me, holding out his hand, "Look at this. I shall never get anything for this disfigurement" That happened before the present scheme came into operation, so there is a vast difference.
Because the numbers of the men we are talking about tonight are limited, because their numbers are growing less every year and because, therefore, the money involved will become less every year, 1 hope that during the Committee stage the Minister will consider whether it is not possible to bring in the partially disabled in order to go some way towards giving them the measure of justice to which they are entitled.
The Minister ought to pay very great regard to the matter. If there is one industry in the country in which we need manpower, it is the mining industry, and if there is one thing more than anything else keeping young men out of the mines it is a miner saying "Look what has happened to me. For goodness sake, do not go near the mines or what has happened to me may happen to you and you may not get adequate compensation" If the Minister can improve the Bill by providing justice for the whole of the 70,000 men, he will probably be doing indirectly one of the best things he could do to aid the recruitment of much-needed manpower to the mining industry.

9.36 p. m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I should like to add my voice to those who have asked for more generous treatment for those who have suffered in the mining industry. I am thinking not specially of the coal mining industry but of a mining industry which once flourished in my constituency, the tin mining industry.
Although tin mining is small in extent compared with the past, it still carries a high incidence of silicosis, as we call it. I have heard the disease described by different terms. When my grandfather coughed his life away it was known as miners' complaint, a very good description. Then it became known as miners' phthisis. Then it was called

silicosis, and now it is known as pneumoconiosis. Whatever it is, it is miners' complaint, a complaint terrible to behold, and a great burden to those who suffer from it, and to their families.
We cannot be too generous to the men in our vital industries who are stricken. I am shocked at the treatment accorded by the country to two classes of compensation cases. The right hon. Gentleman, when Minister of Transport, was responsible for safety on the roads. Those who are injured on the roads get very generous compensation compared with those who sustain injuries in industry. Now that he is Minister of Pensions and National Insurance I hope he will try to ensure that industrial compensation payments are raised more closely to the levels of compensation paid in the case of injury and death on the roads. I see the Minister smiling. I agree that the payments come from different sources, but they still arise from the one national income.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Anyone suffering personal injury on the road can obtain compensation only if he succeeds in establishing negligence on the part of the other party. In the case of road casualties there are none of the advantages of workmen's compensation or the Industrial Injuries Scheme.

Mr. Hayman: I am speaking about the rate of compensation. A person cannot receive compensation for industrial injuries unless he can establish his claim. The compensation for injuries on the roads, while it is true that it does not come from the State, is far more generous than the compensation for industrial injuries.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is still a fact that, if negligence can be proved, a person injured in industry can sue his employer. Over and above that, there are all the provisions that we are discussing which are absent in the case of casualties on the roads. Far more provision is made for the industrial casualty than for the road casualty.

Mr. Hayman: We can take the two categories broadly, I suggest, and without the legal niceties which the right hon. Gentleman naturally brings to the subject.
Speaking as a layman, I think that medical boards— and here again I am on


contentious ground— are so technical in their assessment of injury that very often it appears extraordinarily difficult for anybody to establish a claim at all. I hope, therefore, that the time will come when the gentlemen on those boards will make a far more human assessment of injury of this kind.

9.41 p. m.

Mr. George Deer: I am exceedingly pleased to have the opportunity tonight to welcome the Bill, primarily because it succeeds an infant which I tried to bring into the world. I even offered it to the Minister and asked him to adopt it. He preferred, however, to bring in this Bill. Nevertheless, for this small mercy I give thanks, because it admits a principle and it goes some way towards what I was striving to do when I brought forward my Bill to deal not only with the totally disabled, but also with the partially disabled.
I regard this opportunity tonight as some compensation for the wearisome Fridays I have spent in the House trying to move a Bill, colloquially speaking, "on the nod" and receiving a harsh "Object" from hon. Members opposite, who tonight, I am glad to say, are waiving their objection and supporting their own Minister in his Bill.
Before I had the privilege of representing my constituency, 1 was for 40 years a trade union official. Since 1915, I have been dealing with the effects of workmen's injuries and compensation, and I know something of the difficulties that many workpeople have had in trying to prove employers' liability and in trying to get redress for their wrongs. To go back a little further, in my late 'teens I had the misfortune to have a crushed foot arising out of my employment. The employer and the insurance company, which was a mutual company of employers, both treated me as if I was trying to steal pennies from a blind man's can in asking for workmen's compensation. We were gently told, "If you want compensation and are not too careful in your demands, we might remember it later" Consequently, people who obtained workmen's compensation usually found that they were the first to go when redundancy or unemployment arrived. That was my personal experi-

ence and, therefore, I have some right to talk on this subject.
My second purpose is to thank the Minister, and I do so sincerely. Although he would not father my Bill, I bear him no malice. It is a pleasant step forward that, after negotiations with the Trades Union Congress and the National Union of Mineworkers, he has come to the conclusion that something must be done for at least some of the people who are suffering from the disadvantages of being under workmen's compensation.
I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has made this change, although we should like to see something done for the partially disabled. Anyone who listened to the speeches from my hon. Friends will realise that there is no ambiguity about our feelings on that matter. But I speak for my hon. Friends when I say that under no circumstances shall we delay the passage of this Bill, which does justice to some, because we are not getting what we want for everyone, and I hope that the discussions in Committee will be reasonably short. The Committee stage of the last Bill with which I was associated lasted for twelve minutes. I cannot promise such acceleration, for this Measure, but while we may try to improve the Bill in ways we think acceptable to the Government, we do not intend to obstruct this Bill because it does not give the "partials" all we think they deserve.
We are here dealing with 13,000 out of a total of 45,000 people, and if we include the latent cases, the number is brought up to about 70,000. We must remember that those who were injured prior to 1948 represent many old compensation cases. Some of them sustained the injuries which totally disabled them long before there were the reasonable wages which were paid at the beginning of the last war period. Those who were injured in the 1930's often received small compensation grants. Because of their loss of earning capacity, due to short time and intermittent work and, in some cases, low wages, they received a rather rough deal compared with— I nearly said those who were more fortunate to sustain their injuries later. Of course, no one who sustains an accident is fortunate, but comparatively speaking those who were injured later received better compensation terms.
In many cases the people with whom we are dealing have seen the advent of improved working conditions and pay for the jobs which they used to do. They have had to stand aside, the victims of a struggle which my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) described so graphically. Although in the 1946 Bill, which reached the Statute Book in 1948, we did something for the new cases, for varying reasons we did not include those people who had been injured earlier. We did not do so because, as most hon. Members who were in the House at that time will recall, there were difficulties about wedding the two schemes. The old scheme was based on the loss of earning capacity and was dealt with by insurance companies under mutual contracts and so on. The new scheme made the State responsible, and a fund was created to deal with the injuries as such rather than the loss of earning capacity. It was difficult to classify these particular cases. It would have meant the whole of them coming under critical examination when the new scheme was being introduced.
We had to wait our time, and gradually from 1948 onwards improvements have been made to those Acts, all of which have had some justification in showing that the scheme needed tidying up. This is the next step. I am glad that we are to deal with this one section. I wish the Minister, who has agreed to this rough and ready calculation of 17s. 6d. for the three categories of totally disabled persons, could have gone that little step further and said that he would have a rough and ready calculation of 10s. for the partially disabled. That would have made all the difference between us receiving the Bill with acclamation and receiving it with the reservations which have been shown tonight. On the other hand, if he cannot do that, it may be that as the number diminishes— as diminish it must— we shall have a second opportunity of looking at the case of the people who this time are missed out.
I promised to be reasonably brief in my remarks in order to give the Minister a chance to wind up the debate. So much has been said by my right hon. Friends that they have left me very little to say. I could summarise all that has been said. I expected that some hon. Members would have had greater reservations than we had, but the only hon. Members who

have been rather critical were the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who was bothered about production and where the money was to come from, and the hon. Member for Battersea, South (Mr. Partridge) about inroads into the Fund.
I meet many people in my constituency, which is partly industrial and partly mining. I have never met a person engaged in industry who would make any complaint whatever about inroads which have been made into the Fund to help those worse off than himself. There are ways and means, of course, of assisting the Fund if we so desired.
Much has been said about the significance of this Bill to the mining industry. In my constituency there are seven pits. I was talking to an official of the miners' union yesterday, and he gave me these significant figures. Whilst the mining industry employs only 4 per cent. of the industrial population, it accounts for 40 per cent. of the casualties dealt with under workmen's compensation. People who never know when they leave home to go to work whether they will come back again as they went— who may come back in an ambulance, or worse still, not at all— are bound to take a real interest in this question of the improvement of workmen's compensation.
On behalf of my hon. Friends, I say we shall do all we can to hasten the passage of the Bill through Committee stage. We shall remind the Minister, kindly but severely, that the sooner he fixes a date the better we shall like him. It must be a very pleasant change for a Minister in this present Government in one day to bring in two Bills, both of which have been received with acclamation and promise of support. I say more power to his elbow. I hope and trust that in the not far distant future we shall get the remaining Bill which will improve the position of those left out of this Measure. We pledge ourselves to give this Bill every support we can.

9.55 p. m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): It has become almost a convention, when winding up a Second Reading debate to comment on the measure of agreement between the two sides of the House, the eloquent speeches that have been made, and the


sincerity of all hon. Members in wanting the proposed benefit to be paid. I think I can say that with truth tonight. Hon. Members who have spoken from both sides of the House have been very anxious to do all they can for those men who before 1948 qualified for workmen's compensation.
I shall try, briefly, to reply to some of the points raised. The one thing that has been common to every speech delivered from the benches opposite is, of course, the question of the partially disabled— "partials" as we call them— and on that matter I shall have something to say later. In opening the debate for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. B. Taylor) referred to these men as "the forgotten men," a phrase which we have heard before. He stated that their benefit was last increased in 1943. That is not wholly correct, as I shall show later. The hon. Gentleman also said that out of a total of 70,000— I think that his figure may be on the high side, but I am not proposing to question it at the moment— we were only touching the fringe of the problem. I think he would agree that in dealing with the 13,000 to 14,000 whom this Bill affects we are helping those most in need.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to the necessity for medical examination. I should like to try to make it clear that we hope that in many cases that will not arise, though we must reserve our position in certain instances when it may be necessary to ask a man to undergo a medical examination. In any case, this provision in the Bill gives the Minister power—it is a permissive provision—to act in most instances where that is thought to be necessary.
The hon. Member for Mansfield also asked how the benefit would be paid. The answer is that we hope it can be forwarded for substantial periods in advance. It will be paid by books of orders. That is a point to bear in mind when I later return to the subject of the partially disabled, because it would disturb the system of payments in advance for long periods if partials were included who might have to undergo examination, perhaps even weekly to know whether they would still enjoy the benefit.

Mr. J. T. Price: Before the hon. Lady leaves the general question of entitlement

to benefit, is she in a position to say anything about the considerable number of injured persons who are now receiving compensation under the Government's scheme— Government servants— in respect of whose injuries the Government contracted out of the Workmen's Compensation Acts and who are covered by a special scheme to which no reference whatsoever is made in this Bill?

Miss Pitt: They are covered under Clause 1 (2, a) of the Bill.

Mr. Finch: The hon. Lady referred to the necessity of the partially-disabled having a week-to-week examination. I do not quite understand why that should be so. Did she say a weekly examination?

Miss Pitt: I referred to the possibility of an examination of someone who was partially incapacited having to take place week by week.

Mr. Finch: A medical examination?

Miss Pitt: No, not a medical examination, but an examination as to their need still to enjoy this benefit.
The hon. Member for Mansfield also referred to the specific case of a man only likely to be off work for three months, and asked whether that man would satisfy the terms of Clause 1 (1, a) on the "prolonged period". The answer is that as the Bill is now drafted he probably would not, because "prolonged period" has been taken, on existing case law, to mean about six months. But I will return to that point later.
The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) congratulated my right hon. Friend on the introduction of the Bill, and on his behalf I should like to acknowledge that. She made the point very vigorously that the cost of these proposals should really fall on the insurance companies and not on the Industrial Injuries Fund. It is no part of my task tonight to deal with the position either of the pre-1948 employer or of the insurance company which, in many cases, took the risk of workmen's compensation, but I think that I ought to ask the hon. Lady to consider this analogy. If she herself bought an annuity from an insurance company in the days before 1948 for a specific sum of money which she had invested, and that annuity now brought in £1 a week, I think that she would have little claim, and would


be little likely to approach the insurance company and say "The value of the £ has fallen; I think that you ought to pay me more" That is one of the difficulties of trying to help men —

Mr. J. T. Price: Absolutely invalid.

Miss Pitt: I think that it is a perfectly logical argument.

Mr. Price: If the hon. Lady will give way, I will tell her why it is invalid.

Miss Pitt: I think that if I give way on this point we shall get into an unnecessary digression. As I said before, it is no part of my duty to defend the insurance company, but it is part of my duty to try to make what is, I think, a logical comparison.

Mr. Price: Quite wrong.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Lady said that, failing the insurance company, the benefit should be paid by the Treasury but, again endeavouring to think logically, I believe that if this were to be paid by the Treasury, it, in turn, would have to collect the money from the taxpayer. I see no difference between asking that this money should be paid through the medium of Income Tax collected by the Inland Revenue and paid out by the Treasury and asking that it should be paid by the same man through his contribution towards the Industrial Injuries Fund. I do not regard these arguments as being the main basis of this discussion, but since the points were made, I think that I should try to reply to them.

Miss Herbison: In dealing with both those matters I was taking up a point which I felt had rightly been made by the Minister when he suggested that we should take from the Industrial Injuries Fund only that amount which we felt would do away with grave injustices. It was in dealing with that point, trying to say that we on this side of the House were as much concerned as was the Minister with the future of the Fund, that I made these suggestions. I would have to make another speech to show how illogical was the hon. Lady in drawing an analogy between the annuity and what we are now asking, and also how wrong it is to suggest that the Treasury should not have some responsibility for these people who have had injustices heaped on them for so long.

Miss Pitt: I appreciate that the hon. Lady is as concerned as we are with the proper use of the money in the Industrial Injuries Fund. As I remarked a moment or two ago, I do not want to get these matters out of proportion, but since she raised the points, I thought that it was only proper to comment on them.
The hon. Lady mentioned, in addition to the partially disabled, another point which I feel I must answer. It is that a single totally disabled man under these proposals will receive less than a single man on 100 per cent. disablement pension now receives under the Industrial Injuries Act. But does not the hon. Lady agree that a flat rate of 17s. 6d., giving the same measure of improvement to the single man, the married man or the married man with a child, is the fairest way of doing it? If we were to accept her implied suggestion, we would give the single man 27s. 6d. a week and bring him up to the same rate as the 100 per cent. disablement pensioner. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is right to give the greater increase to the single man than to the married man, or the married man with a child?

Miss Herbison: The hon. Lady has asked me a direct question. Of course I think it would be absolutely right to give to the single man the £1 7s. 6d., because it would bring him up to what the single man under the Industrial Injuries Act gets. I take it that when increases were made in Industrial Injuries benefit they were made because of the increased cost of living. It seems to me that whether a man had an accident before 1948 or after, even though he is a single man, the cost of living is exactly the same. What I have said is absolutely logical. namely, that all those beneficiaries should receive the same as is given under Industrial Injuries.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Lady is now suggesting that we should use the Industrial Injuries Fund to give more help to those suffering least hardship. A single man is better able to look after himself. In fact, the differential is already established under the workmen's compensation rates.

Mr. B. Taylor: How is the single man better able to look after himself if he is totally disabled?

Miss Pitt: I do not mean that the totally disabled man is physically better able to look after himself; I mean in the material sense of buying things and of having sufficient finance with which to carry on.
The hon. Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Finch) referred to the subject of the partially disabled and complained that there was no provision in the Bill for those whose compensation has been commuted. Here I think the answer is that no provision is made in the previous Acts passed by his own Government, namely, the main Act of 1946 and the Act of 1951, so we are following precedent.
The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) referred to the partially disabled and asked about the pre-1924 cases. The answer is this. If the pre-1924 cases are totally disabled, they will qualify in the same way as the post-1924 cases.
The hon. Member for Ince concluded with a very eloquent peroration, which is in keeping with the whole of this debate, and said that we should give the utmost sympathy and practical help that we can to men drawing workmen's compensation. The purpose of this Bill is quite straightforward, as my right hon. Friend made clear in his opening speech. It is to provide a supplement of 17s. 6d. a week to the totally disabled, and that I wish to underline—the totally disabled still receiving workmen's compensation.

Mr. J. T. Price: Would the hon. Lady allow me just to raise this one point? The question of total and partial disablement, in general terms, has been fully discussed this evening, and I do not wish to waste the time of the House; but there is a considerable segment of old cases where partial disablement under the Workmen's Compensation Acts was accepted as total disablement for the purpose of benefit because the continuing effect of the injury prevented the workman from getting employment suitable to his condition. Those are cases under Section 9 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. I should like to know how the Minister proposes to deal with them.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my speech. I promise I shall come to that.
The supplement will also apply to the totally disabled who come within the terms of the Industrial Diseases (Benefit) Act, which provides benefit from the Industrial Injuries Fund to people disabled by certain industrial diseases in cases which would be time-barred, to use the expression which has already been used tonight about workmen's compensation. I think the point has been made very clearly that it was impracticable to absorb the old cases, as the workmen's compensation cases were so frequently called, into the Industrial Injuries Scheme, because of their different bases.
In fact, it is still true that some men are better off under the workmen's compensation scheme, but increases in Industrial Injuries rates have now resulted in a marked disparity between the maximum rates for workmen's compensation and the rate for 100 per cent. disablement pension under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. The 100 per cent. disablement pension was increased to 65s. 6d. last year. The maximum rates of workmen's compensation were last increased in 1943, as the hon. Member for Mansfield said; but there has been some improvement since that date, because the Industrial Injuries Act made unemployability supplement and constant attendance allowance available to the old workmen's compensation cases, and since 1948 sickness benefit has gradually been made available to them until in 1953 they came into full benefit. They are, therefore, better off to that extent.

Mr. B. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to misconstrue what I said. I purposely intimated to the House that the compensation payments had not been increased since 1943, which is true.

Miss Pitt: If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mansfield used the words "compensation payments ", then I did misunderstand him. I inferred from his comment that he was suggesting nothing had been done for the pre-1948 cases. In fact, I am concerned to show that to some extent they are better off than they were before the passing of the 1946 Act. A married man, totally disabled and on compensation, can get £5 15s., the 50s. compensation under the old Workmen's Compensation Act, plus 65s.—and more if he is receiving constant attendance allowance. That compares with 50s. before 1948.
The fact remains that the man on 100 per cent. disablement pension resulting from an industrial accident since July, 1948. is now better off than the man receiving compensation for total incapacity before that date. The disparity justifies some improvement, and that is the purpose of the Bill. It is accepted generally, I think, that that cannot be done at the expense of the employers or insurance companies.

Mr. J. T. Price: I do not accept that.

Miss Pitt: If we are to do anything to benefit these men, then it must be a charge on the Industrial Injuries Fund. If hon. Members had a practical alternative to that, I should have thought that we would have heard about it this evening.

Mr. Price: Every year the insurance companies carrying these liabilities have to make a return to the Board of Trade showing the amount of capital reserved in that year's account to cover liabilities still current. I suggest that the hon. Lady and her right hon. Friend should look at those returns, because that is where the money is to be found.

Miss Pitt: That is quite irrelevant to the debate. To pursue that particular argument, we should have another debate on confiscation. We cannot alter the fact that the premiums paid in the old days are relevant to the benefits provided.
As I was saying before that interruption, the supplement will have to be charged on the Industrial Injuries Fund, and the rate of 17s. 6d. now proposed will bring married men, who form the majority of cases, up to the level of 100 per cent. disablement pension. No provision is made for the partially disabled, because a supplement for these men from the Industrial Injuries Fund is not justified.
The partials are in two groups. The first is those on less than maximum compensation, who form the larger part of the number comprising partials, and the second is those partials on maximum benefit. In the first group— those who have not yet reached maximum compensation— there is provision for a review of the compensation within the maximum to take account of changes in wage rates, so that they are able to benefit

from increases in pay for the particular job they are doing. The second group—those already up to maximum benefit—is the one group where workmen's compensation compares favourably even now with Industrial Injuries.
For example, a 30 per cent. assessment under the Industrial Injuries Scheme gives a pension of 20s. 3d. a week. That can be increased by special hardship allowance at the maximum rate of 27s. 6d. a week, which brings the total up to 47s. 9d. a week. That should be compared with 50s. to which the married man is entitled on maximum workmen's compensation for partial disability. It will be seen, as I have said, that the man on workmen's compensation is better off than the man on a 30 per cent. assessment under the Industrial Injuries Scheme. In fact, about three-quarters of the disablement pensioners under industrial injuries have assessments of 30 per cent. or less.
One further point is the fact that the partials are able to benefit from increased wages. In fact, they still have capacity to work, and the benefits they are entitled to from under the National Insurance Scheme are increased from time to time.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Miss Pitt: I cannot answer all three Members at once.

Mr. Finch: I do not like to interrupt all the time, but the hon. Lady has given some answers which are not correct. She mentioned rates of compensation for partially disabled men rising as a result of increases in wages. That may be true in some cases, but it very often operates the other way round. There are men in the mining industry who are getting an increase in wages in light work, but there are thousands of men who are getting no compensation at all. Let us have the right setting and not an exaggeration.

Miss Pitt: The hon. Member has misunderstood me. I just said that these men are able to benefit from the increased rates of pay, which are being paid in every industry in the country.

Mr. Finch: Partially disabled men may get a slight increase in light work wages, but suppose they do? That results in the reduction of compensation. The hon. Lady is making a lot of the increase in light work wages, but those are still far


behind what the men could have been earning. Do let us have the facts in the right perspective.

Miss Pitt: The point I am making is that they can share in the generally increased level of prosperity in the country.
I come to the question of the prolonged period.

Miss Herbison: rose—

Miss Pitt: I would rather not give way again because the debate has already gone on for a considerable time and I have already given way frequently.
The supplement is to be paid if a man is incapable of work as the result of injury or disease and is likely to remain so for "a prolonged period ". The Industrial Injuries Commissioner will be the final authority to decide what is meant by "prolonged period" but as my right hon. Friend endeavoured to make clear in his speech we think it wise to keep this definition of "prolonged period" as flexible as possible so that we should not be tied down to three months or six months or whatever period may be decided upon. That would make for difficult cases and difficult decisions. If there is a certain amount of discretion in the interpretation of the words "prolonged period" we think that it will benefit the men concerned.
Claims will be decided by the usual machinery. That is the insurance officer in the first place; on appeal the case would go to the local tribunal; the final appeal would in certain circumstances be to the Industrial Injuries Commissioner. It is not possible to give an accurate estimate of the numbers who will benefit, but we think probably between 10,000 and 11,000 on workmen's compensation and about 3,000 under the benefit schemes; perhaps more than three-fifths of the beneficiaries will be from the coal mining industry.' I understand the interest which hon. Members opposite who represent mining constituencies have in that matter. The cost will be £ 650,000 a year at first, to be met out of the Industrial Injuries Fund, and it will be a diminishing figure.
May I conclude with a comment on something said by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Deer). He referred, in what I thought was a rather telling

phrase, to the men who have had to "stand aside". We are trying in this Bill to help the men who have had to stand aside, those who do not share in the general level of increased prosperity, the men who are not able to help themselves, the men in need. We hope to do something for them through this Bill.

Miss Herbison: There was one category of men whose position was mentioned in speeches from this side of the House, but not mentioned by the hon. Lady in her reply to the debate, and that is the category of those who are receiving 20s. a week as men suffering from pneumoconiosis and considered partially disabled. All that has been said in the hon. Lady's reply about those who are partially disabled cannot apply to these people. What is the attitude of the Government to them?

Miss Pitt: The Bill applies only to people who are totally disabled.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AND BENEFIT (SUPPLEMENTATION) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved.
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of allowances out of the Industrial Injuries Fund with a view to supplementing workmen's compensation and benefit, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorize—"

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance or any other Government Department in carrying the Act into effect;
(b) if the Act applies subsection (1) of section thirteen of the National Assistance Act. 1948. so as to reduce the liabilities under the Act of the Industrial Injuries Fund by reference to the amount of any assistance grants. the payment out of the Fund into the Exchequer of an amount equal to any such reduction.—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

Resolution to be reported upon Thursday.

Orders of the Day — SUEZ CANAL

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Wills.]

10.25 p. m.

Mr. John Peyton: I have realised very clearly since I learned that I had the opportunity of raising the question of the Suez Canal that it is a very large problem to raise at such a time as this. I remind the House, however, that the reason for my doing so is my acute disappointment with the Answers which were given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs a few days ago in the House.
It is, of course, clear that no one can attempt to deal with the question of the Suez Canal and present any future problems divorced from the background of the Middle East. I want to start by saying to my noble Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, while we all respect and admire a certain amount of caution on the part of the Foreign Office, we believe that that can be greatly overdone. One of the really urgent things to which the present Government must give their attention is the state of public opinion in the country. It manifestly needs leadership and instruction from those who are responsible for formulating policy.
In relation to such spheres as the Middle East, the public is now looking very anxiously for something much more definite in the way of guidance than the assurance that difficult problems are being looked into, borne in mind, considered and the rest. We definitely need a clear formulation of policy which people are able to understand.
We have the situation in relation to the Suez Canal that a resolution of the Security Council is being flouted. Can we really put up with that? How strong do we intend the United Nations to be? Is our loyalty to that organisation merely one of lip-sevice or not? One accepts, of course, and must accept, that the problems of the Suez Canal are affected by Arab-Israeli politics. It should be observed here that, quite contrary to the hopes that some of us may have cherished, agreement on the Suez base has not been followed in any way by improvement in Anglo-Egyptian relations.
I do not wish to waste my time on abusing somebody who may, after all, be only a very temporary leader of his country, but I would say that Colonel Nasser has seen fit to subjugate his people's interests and subordinate his own promise to the very dubious prestige that might be gained by being the possessor of a certain quantity of modern arms which one can say clearly and dogmatically will never be of any benefit to Egypt or anyone in the Middle East.
Perhaps I should say—I do not want to enlarge on this—that even sadder is the fact that in this dangerous part of the world Anglo-American co-operation has been conspicuous far too often by its absence. Mr. Dulles has given the appearance of being very much more easily influenced by anti-imperialist gibes and propaganda than by the desire to be helpful to his principal Ally.
It is also the unfortunate fact that there has been in that part of the world a series of Anglophobe American ambassadors who have really done nothing to manifest either a willingness to co-operate or to understand this country. They have gone further than that; they have been a constant source of embarrassment. If evidence is required, I would instance Mr. Cannon's statement the other day on the rather different question of the banishment of Archbishop Makarios.
To deal with the Canal itself, the present restrictions on navigation emanate, we know, from the present hostilities between Egypt and Israel, and I suppose that it is unrealistic to expect a complete cessation of those restrictions while the hostilities continue. Therefore, one is forced back to the general question whether we are really doing enough. whether we are playing a sufficiently effective part in bringing this highly explosive situation in the Middle East under effective control.
Look as one may for some sign of encouragement, it is not easy to find. The Tripartite Declaration, which in itself is a dangerously vague paper commitment, in fact really offers but a flimsy promise of stability. Indeed, it has not secured stability in the Middle East, and certainly it has not secured any friends for this country. But I think it would be most ungenerous if one did not pay tribute to the work which General Burns has attempted to do, though, at the same


time, we must admit that we have asked him to do what in the long run is impossible. To ask General Burns, with a limited staff, to carry out his great task of pacification without greater force at his disposal is something which I cannot understand.
I think it is true to say that, so long as this dangerous situation is allowed to drift, the principal problems will be neglected, and one of those problems is certainly and incontrovertibly that of the Suez Canal. At the present moment certain arbitrary restrictions on navigation are being imposed, and I suggest that it is intolerable that such arbitrary restrictions should be imposed upon the use of an international waterway.
It is no use giving mere lip-service to a Resolution of the Security Council. It is no use merely stating in this House that it is on the whole rather undesirable, or something of that kind, that restriction should be placed on navigation. In my opinion, it must be stated clearly, beyond a peradventure, that restrictions placed upon the use of an international waterway of the kind of the Suez Canal are absolutely intolerable. It is true, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will remind the House, that the Canal is now being used by more ships than ever before, but I say that this fact in itself merely underlines the need for effective international control of the waterway of the Suez Canal.
It may be, and I am not prepared to deny it, that Egypt may have a strong claim to some share in the revenue of the Canal. But I do say to my hon. Friend that the present Egyptian Government have not yet given those who believe in freedom of commerce between nations any justification for thinking that their word can be relied upon or that their word is of any value.
It may well be that someone else far worse will shortly follow Colonel Nasser, but even as things are at present we have little justification for relying upon the word of the Egyptian Government. It is an intolerable situation that either now or in the future the body in control of the Suez Canal should fall entirely under the hand of Egypt.
A second point which I should like to make is that the problem of the future use of the Suez Canal is not one, surely,

which should be postponed until 1968. It is something that we must deal with now. What does my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary anticipate will be the future traffic through the Suez Canal? Does he anticipate that the physical limitations of the Canal are such as will gradually tend to diminish its usefulness, or does he think that the physical limitations can be overcome? If they can be overcome— and probably they can— to deal with an immensely increased volume of traffic, I suggest that that is something which we must face now, immediately.
To do that, we must quite clearly go into consultation with all those other nations who are directly interested. Of course, I include Egypt as one of them. I think that a clear approach and a clear lead—I know that that is a painful word nowadays—with clear leadership from this country, is called for to lay down, in the name of international law, the conditions for the future use of the Suez Canal. It would, of course, be preferable that that should be done in the name of the United Nations.
There is one question that I should like to ask my hon. Friend, in view of the need for finance for widening or other works on the Canal. What use is being made of the revenues of the Suez Canal? If my hon. Friend has not that information available tonight, I should be interested to hear it as soon as possible. I am sure that the House would be interested to know it also.
I do not want to prolong my remarks, as I want to leave time for other hon. Members to take part in the debate and for my hon. Friend to reply, but I want to say this. There was a time when this country was not afraid to enunciate policies and was not unable to persuade others to support those policies in partnership with us. I find it difficult to believe that a few propaganda gibes have so sapped our courage and robbed us of our confidence that we are unable to face this problem boldly. I am quite certain that if we attempt now to run away from the hard facts of the situation in the Middle East, we shall indeed be released from the control of the civilised world— a situation fraught with danger, not only for those who use the Suez Canal and for all who live in the Middle East, but for the world as a whole.
I make no apology for having raised in a very short time some of the points which bear closely upon this vital international waterway, and I hope that my hon. Friend and his right hon. Friends at the Foreign Office will realise that there is an increasing demand in this country for a clear formulation of policy on behalf of our people.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Paul Williams: The House and the country should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for raising this matter. It is perhaps significant that hon. Members opposite are not assembled in serried ranks in order to take part in this discussion. The fact that there is not a single member of the Labour Party in the Chamber shows to some degree the interest taken by hon. Members opposite in essential and vital British interests.
I wish to stress two points to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary. Without some further protest, influence or sanction, we can no longer tolerate the absence of freedom of navigation through this international waterway. I wish to remind my hon. Friend of the sanction which remains within our power, the sanction and influence which we hold and which we could use to bring home to the Egyptian Government the importance and the sanity of our point of view. I refer to the fact that we still hold sterling balances in this country.
It may be that in the months ahead we are committed to payments under a previous agreement. But where the Egyptian Government is presently in default in respect of an international agreement, I think it perfectly reasonable to say that this country should be willing to review commitments to that Government with a view to saying that unless they are willing to allow freedom of navigation through the Canal, we shall block their sterling balances.

10.41 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Douglas Dodds-Parker): When this debate was arranged, referring to the Suez Canal, I did not anticipate that my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) would raise

other issues affecting the Middle East, and I do not think that he expects me to discuss those controversial subjects on this occasion. I have to guide me not only his remarks tonight but the points which he raised in supplementary questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, who replied to Questions by my hon. Friend on 7th May.
From those questions and the remarks which my hon. Friend has made this evening, I think that two points emerge. The first is the freedom of navigation of the Canal, which is impeded by the Egyptians against Israeli interests. The second is the future operation of the Canal, which as my hon. Friends have said, is of the greatest importance to us all and of the greatest interest to hon. Members of this House.
I wish first to make clear the present position regarding the "blockade" or rather the freedom of navigation of the Canal. It has been made clear on many occasions by my right hon. and hon. Friends, both in this House and in the Security Council. Of course, the Arab countries take a view different from ours. They consider themselves to be still at war with Israel and therefore entitled to take measures of this sort. We differ in our view of the armistice, but I am trying to make clear the view taken by Egypt, as one of the Arab countries.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: Surely my hon. Friend will agree that the original Suez Canal Convention, under which Egypt is bound, laid down categorically that the Canal must be kept open at all times, whether in peace or war, to all ships, whether ships of war or not?

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I was coming to that point.
We do not agree with the line taken by the Arab countries on this question. But I do not think that anyone would pretend that we can remove these restrictions by saying that we do not agree with them.
In 1951 Israel referred this matter to the Security Council. Very briefly, the history of the matter is that from May, 1948, onwards the Arab States have imposed an economic blockade on Israel, and in particular the Egyptian Government have refused to grant passage


through the Canal to Israeli shipping or to shipping of other nations bound for Israel. Those restrictions, together with the cutting of the oil pipelines from Iraq, had certain most unfortunate economic effects upon the important oil refinery at Haifa, and from that point of view, and others, the question was brought before the Security Council by Israel in July, 1951.
On 1st September of that year the Council adopted an Anglo-French-United States Resolution calling upon Egypt
 to terminate the restrictions on the passage of international commercial shipping through the Suez Canal, wherever bound, and to cease all interference with such shipping 
That, as has often been made clear from this Box before, is how the matter stands at the moment. It is no longer a matter, therefore, for unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, but for all countries represented at the United Nations. and particularly for all countries interested in maritime matters and free transit through the Canal.
The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) was raised again I think, in Questions yesterday when reference was made to the reaffirmation, in the 1954 Agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Egyptian Government, of the principle of freedom of navigation. In Article 8 of that Agreement it is laid down that
 The two Contracting Governments recognise that the Suez Maritime Canal which is an integral part of Egypt, is a waterway economically, commercially and strategically of great importance, and express the determination to uphold the Convention guaranteeing the freedom of navigation of the Canal signed at Constantinople on the 29th of October, 1888 
That referred particularly to Article I of the Convention of 1888, and was reaffirmed by the Egyptian Government and Her Majesty's Government in 1954. It is a matter of deep regret to Her Majesty's Government that restrictions imposed by Egypt on Israeli shipping and ships bound to and from Israel should have continued for so long after the armistice agreements between Israel and her neighbours.
I might say, in passing, that we have welcomed, and I am glad that both sides of the House paid tribute to the efforts

made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in attempting to solve this problem, among others. We intend to give him and the United Nations our whole-hearted support in working for a general settlement of the dispute between Israel and her neighbours whereby so many problems, including that of Egypt impeding navigation of the Canal, can best be solved.

Mr. Peyton: I am glad that we give support to the Secretary-General, but I ask my hon. Friend that we should take the initiative in the United Nations and, in very close consultation with the United States and others interested, really get the free nations to take some effective action.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: If my hon. Friend had studied what has been going on in the last few years in the United Nations he would realise that a very great deal of initiative has been taken by this country. As the Minister of State made clear yesterday, it was the present Foreign Secretary who put forward a number of ideas which led to action taken by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his trip. I can assure my hon. Friend, if he needs assurance, that we are taking a considerable amount of initiative in these matters—far more than he and others sometimes give us credit for.
Now we have the matter within the United Nations, it is not one for unilateral action by Her Majesty's Government, and we shall continue, as I say, to give all support to the Secretary-General and to the United Nations in trying to bring this matter to a successful conclusion. It is, after all, a matter which is of great interest to other maritime nations and not only to the United Kingdom.
So I come to the actual administration of the Canal. As I think the House realises, the Suez Canal is a major international waterway of vital importance to the world as a whole, and particularly to Western Europe and the maritime countries.
I think it is sometimes not remembered what tremendous developments have taken place in the last few years in the transport of oil through pipelines which reach the Near East coast of the Mediterranean, and by reason of the air lines which carry so much passenger traffic between the Mediterranean and the


East. Despite all this, however, the Suez Canal remains of vital importance to all of us. The tremendous growth of Middle East oil production has added to its importance. Today, half the oil consumed in Western Europe comes through the Suez Canal.
Events in the Middle East and the evolution going on there bring up for consideration the future of the Canal, what we are doing, and what we can do, to ensure the operational efficiency of the Canal. Use of the Canal increases rapidly. In 1938, the last full year before the war, 34 million tons of shipping passed through the Canal; in 1945, the figure fell to 25 million tons; but five years later, in 1950, the figure was 81 million tons, and in 1955, 115 million tons.
Britain remains the largest single user. In 1955 British shipping accounted for 28.3 per cent. of the tonnage passing through the Canal. It is clear that this expansion will continue, if only because of the rate at which the production and sale of Middle East oil is increasing. We cannot foretell what the position will be in ten years' time, or even five years from now. It is not just a question of the number of ships which wish to pass through the Canal; it is a question of the capacity of the Canal, the size of the ships, and so forth
It is important to assess the nature of the problem which will arise in the next few years. The Suez Canal Company, with the support of the British directors, is making a constant study of all these problems. Those of us who were involved in this matter—however briefly—in the years before and during the war should pay tribute to the management of the Canal for what they have succeeded in doing, in view of developments in the

last ten years—developments which were quite unexpected in 1945.
This brings me to the management of the Canal, and to stress, which I am sure is not necessary in this House, that the Suez Canal Company is an Egyptian Company operating a concession which expires in 1968. The Canal is in Egyptian territory, and Egypt benefits considerably from taxes and dues paid by the company and by ships using the Canal. But the company's obligations are international. It has to meet an expanding volume of shipping. It has to maintain the waterway, and provide the hundred and one facilities that this demands.
It must be free, we believe, to do this. It is not in the Egyptian Government's interest that the company should be restricted or impeded from providing the service which is required. I would stress again the commercial nature of this problem. We believe, from the experience of the past, that the Egyptian Government recognise this. Many subjects come up for discussion between the company and the Egyptian Government, and we believe that these questions affecting the administration of the Canal are best left to them to settle on the basis of cooperation and mutual interest.
We have three Government directors on the Board of the Company, through whom Her Majesty's Government maintain close touch with the company's affairs—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,Mr. SPEAKERadjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at five minutes to Eleven o'clock.